Category: Email

Can The Government Obtain a Warrant For Email Data Stored Overseas?

In the Matter of a Warrant to Search the E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, 13 Mag. 2814 (S.D.N.Y), the Southern District of New York considered a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of Microsoft email analytics and data stored overseas in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft moved to quash the

Court-ordered Disclosure of Metadata Uncovers Falsified Document

Metadata, a.k.a. the “data about data,” provides an extremely useful source of electronic discovery information, and new cases every day demonstrate that courts increasingly recognize its relevancy as evidence. In Tangible Value, LLC v. Town Sports International Holdings Inc., Civil Action No. 10-1453-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. November 19, 2014), the production of metadata irrevocably altered

Plaintiffs Defeat Efforts to Limit Custodians and Search Terms

The Plaintiffs in A&R Body Specialty and Collision Works v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Civ. No. 3:07CV929 (WWE) (D.Conn. November 19, 2014) recently learned an important lesson in terms of when an electronically stored information dispute warrants a court’s intervention. Plaintiffs had sought supplemental discovery from defendants after receiving a disappointing initial document

Can Inadvertent Production of One Privileged Email Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege?

Under the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction, when does counsel’s inadvertent production of a privileged email constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege?  An Iowa district judge recently considered that issue in Pick v. City of Remsen, No. C 13-4041-MWB (N.D.Iowa, September 15, 2014). In response to Plaintiff Pick’s requests for electronically stored

Email Spoliation Claim Can Move Forward Against Defendant

In Yontz v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Case No. 3:13-cv-066 (S.D.Ohio, October 10, 2014), Plaintiff alleges retaliation and wrongful termination related to FLMA leave.  Plaintiff also claims that Defendant spoliated relevant emails.  Defendant moved for summary judgment on the spoliation allegation and on the underlying merits of the case.  The court considered

Defendants Must Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Cannot Do The Same

Plaintiff Finjan in the Northern District of California patent litigation case Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF(2014 WL 5321095 (N.D.Cal.) recently won a contentious motion to compel regarding Defendant Blue Coat Systems’s refusal to produce emails from its archived database. Before the dispute arose, the parties had agreed to produce documents from a select number of custodians using

Is Human Error a Valid Excuse for Missing Emails and Audio Recordings?

In Novick v. AXA Network, No. 07-CV-7767(AKH)(KNF)(S.D.N.Y. October 22, 2014), at issue is Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant for missing audio recordings and emails. The timeline is helpful to understand this case: Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination that occurred in October 2006 Plaintiff sent an evidence preservation request in October

When are Proposed Search Terms Overly Burdensome?

In TVIMM LLC v. McAffee, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04545-VC(KAW)(N.D.Cal. October 15, 2014), a search term and electronic discovery dispute arose. Plaintiff eDiscovery requests sought email correspondence from Defendant. There was an agreed ESI Order, which dictated the parties were allowed five search terms. Further, they could not request “indiscriminate terms,

Did These Emails About Discovery Materials Violate a Confidentiality Order?

Mitchell Lane Publishers, Inc. v. Rasemas, C.A.No.9144-VCN (Del.Ch. Sept. 26, 2014) is a Delaware Chancery Court case between book publishers regarding whether certain emails sent after electronic discovery was produced violated the Court’s Confidentiality Order. Defendant contended Plaintiff violated this Order when she sent three email communications to third-parties after

Are Emails Containing Search Term Keywords Automatically Discoverable?

Lewis v. Bay Industries, et al., Case No. 12-C-1204, (E.D.Wis. Sept. 30, 2014) is a case where the plaintiff alleged unlawful retaliation under state and federal law. Pending before the court is the employer’s (“Bay”) Motion for Summary Judgment and Lewis’ Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37. Lewis contended that