-
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Rigorous Social Media Discovery Searches From Class Plaintiffs Denied
In In re: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. FL Nov. 15, 2021) Defendants served the 10 named Class Plaintiffs with Requests for Production and Interrogatories related to the Second Amended Consolidated Economic Loss Class Action Complaint and the Amended Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint. At issue
-
Neither The Attorney-Client Privilege Nor Work-Product Doctrine Prohibits The Disclosure of Factual Information About A Party’s Discovery Efforts
In GINA VASOLI v. YARDS BREWING COMPANY, and TREVOR PRICHETT, Civil Action No. 21-2066 (E.D.P.A. Nov. 1, 2021), at issue was whether Defendants withheld ESI that would have been pertinent to Plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation case. During discovery, Defendant Yards Brewing Company, LLC (“Yards”), and its Chief Executive Officer,
-
Motion To Permit Introduction of Spoliation Evidence At Trial Granted
In In Re: GOLD KING MINE RELEASE IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ (D. NM Aug 6, 2021) before the Court was the Navajo Nation’s and the State of New Mexico’s (“Sovereign Plaintiffs) and Sunnyside Gold Corporation’s (SGC) Motion for Sanctions arising from the EPA’s alleged spoliation of evidence.
-
Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages Granted
In SAGE PRODUCTS v. CHEMRITE COPAC, INC., No. 19 CV 5308 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2021) pending before the Court was a motion by Defendant ChemRite Copac, Inc., to compel Plaintiff, Sage Products, LLC, to produce text messages. This was a breach-of-contract suit between Sage, a manufacturer and supplier of
-
Evidence Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Encryption Keys Permitted To Be Presented To Jury
[kc_row use_container=”yes” force=”no” column_align=”middle” video_mute=”no” _id=”935427″][kc_column width=”12/12″ video_mute=”no” _id=”803459″][kc_column_text _id=”725881″] In DOUBLELINE CAPITAL v. ODEBRECHT FINANCE, No. 17-CV-4576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021), a securities fraud lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought sanctions against Defendants, specifically, a mandatory adverse inference instruction at trial, as remedy for Defendants’ intentional destruction of encryption keys needed to
-
Arbitrary Limits On The Number of Custodians And Use of ESI Costs In Different Case To Justify Burden And Splitting of Costs Rejected by Magistrate Judge
In COUNTESS CARY v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP, No. 19 C 3014 (N.D. Illinois February 22, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s production of ESI, which presented multiple issues. With respect to the issue of the number of custodians, Defendant proposed an arbitrary
-
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Spoliation Overruled
In KIEFFABER v. ETHICON, Civil Action No. 20-1177-KHV (D. Kansas March 25, 2021), Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendants’ spoliation. Despite an admission by its corporate designee that Ethicon destroyed tens of thousands of relevant documents in violation of its own document
-
The Fact That Search Terms May Yield A Large Production Does Not Mean The Search Terms Are Too Broad
In Green v. Meeks, Case No. 20-cv-00463-SPM (S.D. Illinois. Jan. 15, 2021), Plaintiff moved for an entry of an ESI protocol allowing for use of search terms to applied to email accounts of 15 individuals employed by Defendant or the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants objected that the proposed search
-
Confidentiality Designation Not Appropriate Merely Because A Document Maybe Harmful, Uncomfortable, Or Embarrassing
In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2021), the issue before the Court was whether a Confidentiality designation pursuant to a Discovery Confidentiality or Protective Order was appropriate. In this case regarding claims that the generic version of the drug Valsartan for high
-
Defendant’s Request For An Order Foregoing Plaintiffs’ Post TAR Review and Cost Shifting Denied by Magistrate Judge
In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2020) before the Court was Defendant Teva’s request for an Order to forego additional review of documents that based on its own unilaterally developed and administered TAR, were predicted to be non-responsive. Teva alternatively sought to