Category: ESI

Court Affirmed Magistrate Judge’s Orders Imposing Costs for Expenses Incurred in Connection with TAR Process

In LAWSON v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 18-1100-EFM (D. Kansas, Oct. 18, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s orders that shifted and fixed the amount of e-discovery expenses against Plaintiff. On June 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge previously granted Defendant’s motion to shift TAR

Court Denies Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse

In COOLEY v. TARGET CORPORATION ET AL., Civil No. 20-2152 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 2022), a case involving a copyright dispute, Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order dated June 10, 2022, that denied her Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse. As an

Defendant’s “Self-Collection” Efforts Insufficient After Court Found Defendant’s Counsel Failed to Supervise or Advise Defendant’s ESI Search

In EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. M1 5100 CORP., d/b/a JUMBO SUPERMARKET, INC., Civil No. 19-cv-81320-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN, before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) of 1967, as amended, 29

Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs Denied After Court Found Costs Did not Fall Within Categories of Awardable Costs Listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920

In OBESLO v. GREAT-WEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC., Civil Actions Nos. Civil Action Nos. 16-cv-00230-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-01215-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-03162-CMA-SKC (D. Colorado, Aug. 25, 2021), before the Court was Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs. This case was a shareholder derivative action brought under the Investment Company Act (“ICA”). After an 11-day bench

Request For Forensic Exam Denied by Court Where Moving Party Failed To Exhaust Other Less Intrusive Means Of Collecting The Same Information

In TIREBOOTS BY UNIVERSAL CANVAS, INC. v. TIRESOCKS, INC., TIRESOCKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 20 CV 7404 (N.D. Illinois, June 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ electronically stored information (“ESI”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2). Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller

Defendant’s “Wait and See” Approach Rejected In Favor of Entry of ESI Protocol

In WEIDMAN ET. AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich. S. Div. Feb. 3, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of an ESI Protocol. This action arose from an alleged defect with the brake master cylinder in the Ford F-150 trucks, model years 2013

Court Rules, In Part, That Emails Among Non-Attorneys In A Corporation Maybe Privileged If Made At Direction of Counsel To Gather Information To Aid Counsel in Providing Legal Services

In ALLGOOD v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case 2:19-cv-02323-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Defendants’ purportedly privileged documents to the Court for in camera review. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Baptist Memorial Medical Group. On Oct. 10, 2018, Plaintiff

Court Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions After Finding Rule 37(e) Did Not Support Adverse Inference Instruction

In HAMRICK v. SPLASH TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., No. 3:20-CV-00417-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. The action arose from a vehicular incident. Defendant Elmehalawy was the truck driver for Splash Transport, Inc. (“Splash”). Defendant James was the truck driver for

Defendant Ordered To Produce Earlier-In-Time Emails That Were Part Of Most-Inclusive Email Threads Defendant Previously Produced

In IN RE ACTOS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA) (S.D. N.Y., March, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion that sought to compel Defendant to “(1) produce all nonprivileged, responsive earlier-in-time emails that are part of the most-inclusive email threads [Defendant] already has produced or will

Proportionality Not A Basis For Relevance Redactions

In KELLMAN v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., Case No. 17-cv-06584-LB (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2021), before the Court were several issues: First, to what extent could Defendants redact non-responsive and irrelevant information from their productions, and second, whether Defendants had sufficiently described in its privilege log documents