-
Medical Record Metadata Ordered To Be Produced In Light Of Different And Conflicting Versions of Plaintiff’s Medical Records
In Miller v. Sauberman, Index No. 805270/16 (N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018), a New York Supreme Court Justice denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted Plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of metadata related to Plaintiff’s medical records, despite Defendant’s estimated cost of $250,000 to produce such records. In
-
Defendant’s Request for Return of iPhone Denied Where Government’s Evidentiary Interest In Phone Outweighed Defendant’s Interest In Its Return
In U.S. v. Morgan, No. 1:18-CR-00108 EAW (W.D. N.Y. March 6, 2020), a New York District Judge denied Defendant’s Motion for Return of Property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) on the grounds that, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the Government’s evidentiary interest in the subject
-
Meet And Confer Impasse Reached With “OK. File Motion to Compel” Response
In White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin., No. C19-0284-JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2020), a Washington judge granted Defendant’s motion to compel after finding that Plaintiff’s conduct and responses did not reflect a good faith effort to comply with discovery rules. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide
-
In Slip And Fall Case, Motion For Spoliation Of Video Denied Where No Duty to Preserve Video Arose Until After Lawsuit Was Filed
In Nguyen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 9:19-cv-80393 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020), a Florida Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of a video allegedly showing a slip-and-fall by plaintiff on the grounds that defendant had no affirmative duty to preserve the video for the nearly two-year
-
Producing Party Not Required To Translate Nor Costs To Translate Shiftable Rules Court
In NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, No. 2:17-12269-SDW-ESK (D. N.J. Jan. 6, 2020), a New Jersey Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s application seeking to compel defendants to translate documents served as part of their document production on the grounds that “Rule 34 does not address which party has the
-
PDF Production Ruled Insufficient In Case Involving Theft of Trade Secrets
In Balancecxi, Inc. D/B/A Zacoustic v. International Consulting and Research Group, LLC, et al (W.D. Tex, Mar. 13, 2020), the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel requiring defendants to produce all ESI, including metadata, and additional storage devices after finding that defendants’ discovery responses were insufficient in both form and
-
Use Of Messaging App To Auto Delete Text Messages During Discovery Phase of Case Was In Bad Faith
In Herzig v. Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02101 (W.D. Ark. July 3, 2019), the Arkansas District Judge found that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by using and “manually configuring [the messaging app] Signal to delete text communications” and by failing to disclose those deleted messages to Defendant.
-
Motion to Redact Discovery Hearing Transcript Denied On Public Interest Grounds
In Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Tech., Inc. et al., Nos. 17-275-LPS, 17-1353-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2019), the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Redact Portions of the August 14, 2019 Discovery Teleconference and related submissions on the grounds that “the public has an interest in understanding
-
Objections To Production of Emails Overruled Due To Lack of Privilege
In Guardiola v. Adams City School District No. 14 et al., No. 1:18-cv-03230-RM-NRN (D. Colo. Oct. 25, 2019), the District Court Judge overruled Defendant’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order compelling them to disclose certain emails that Defendant argued were subject to the attorney-client privilege on the grounds that “the
-
Motion to Suppress ESI Denied Where An Expectation of Privacy Was Objectively Unreasonable
In United States v. Caputo, No. 3-18-cr-00428-IM (D. Or. Nov. 6, 2019), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress ESI and various emails obtained via a warrant-less search of Defendant’s workplace email account on the grounds that under the military’s computer use policies in effect, “any expectation of privacy in