Category: ESI

Court Denies Request for ESI On Relevance Grounds

In James W. Lillard v. University of Louisville, Case No. 11-CV-554, June 2, 2015, the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky held that although discovery may be broad, relevance must be a factor in requesting production of ESI and paper documents. Plaintiff, a doctor engaged in cancer research, filed

ESI Disputes Continue In Lawsuit Alleging $350 Million in Damages

The ESI disputes that have plagued the parties and the court in Procaps v. Patheon Inc., Case No. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D.Fla. April 24, 2015) continued last month when Plaintiff Procaps refused to allow Defendant Patheon to depose its court-ordered computer forensics expert.  (Check out ILS’s previous articles here and here discussing Procaps’ failure to

Court Finds Defendant BOA’s Arguments Against Producing ESI Meritless

In Jones et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-11531 (S.D.W.Va. April 21, 2015), the Southern District of West Virginia considered Defendant Bank of America’s objections to producing ESI for Plaintiff mortgage borrowers’ document requests. Plaintiffs requested production of ESI and a number of documents, including but not limited

Searchable PDF Production with Metadata Complies with FRCP 34

In Spilker v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015), the Eastern District of North Carolina considered whether Defendants’ “document dump” complied with FRCP 34. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, alleging that Defendants had engaged in a “document dump” that did not comply with FRCP 34. Plaintiff asserted that

Bad Faith Spoliation Found Where Defendant Discarded Relevant Computer

In Grady v. Brodersen, No. 13-cv-00752-REB-NYW (D.Colo. Mar. 23, 2015), a copyright infringement case filed in May 2013, the District Court of Colorado entered a scheduling order on February 20, 2014, ordering Defendant to preserve all electronically stored information (ESI), including metadata, and to identify his relevant devices. On February 27,

Court Denies Request for Native Files After Party First Accepts Production in PDF Format

to In Davenport et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No. 4:12CV0007 AGF (E.D. Mo. March 20, 2015), a conditionally certified class action regarding unpaid wages, the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether Defendant must reproduce its searchable PDF document production in “computer readable” format. The court’s joint discovery order permitted the parties to produce their ESI in

Court Troubled by Defendant’s Unilateral Selection of Email Custodians

In Charvat v. Valente, et al., No. 12 CV 5746 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2015), a class action lawsuit brought against various defendant telemarketing companies and cruise ship companies, the Northern District of Illinois considered whether a defendant can unilaterally designate email custodians without any input from Plaintiff. The court had ordered Plaintiffs to hire an

Court Quashes Subpoena for Irrelevant Plaintiff Text Messages

In Burdette v. Panola County, No. 3:13CV286-MPM-SAA (N.D. Miss. February 4, 2015), the Northern District of Mississippi granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena where Defendant subpoenaed Plaintiff’s text messages and call log records. Plaintiff filed an employment lawsuit alleging unpaid wages and retaliation. Defendant served AT & T with a subpoena

Failing to Meet and Confer Results In Annoying a Federal Judge

District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer had obviously had enough of the parties’ discovery disputes in Herron v. Fannie Mae, CV No. 10-943 (RMC) (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2105) when she titled her latest discovery order “Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute.” The case, which involves allegations of wrongful termination by a Fannie

Lesson Learned: Best Practice Is To Specify Desired ESI Format In First RFP

The plaintiff in Allison v. Clos-ette Too, LLC, No. 14 CV 1618 (LAK)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2015) learned the hard way that the best ESI practice is to always specify the desired document format in the first request for production. Plaintiff sent discovery requests to Defendant, but failed to specify