-
The Most Important Plaintiff eDiscovery Cases of 2014
The Year in Electronic Discovery: Part I Because electronically stored information (ESI) is now the main source of evidence in most civil litigation, courts are building case law every day that affects plaintiff trial attorneys. In Part I of our 2014 Year in Review, we highlight the most important recent cases
-
What is the Proper Scope of ESI in a Defamation Action of a Public Figure?
Klayman v. City Pages, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL (M.D.Fla. October 22, 2014) is a defamation action brought by Larry Klayman against journalists and publications. Klayman alleged Defendants published three articles that contained defamatory statements about his child support and custody case, as well as disciplinary proceedings by the Florida
-
Defense Counsel Fined for Failing to Issue Timely Litigation Hold
Alter v. Rocky Point School Dist., No. 13-1100(JS)(AKT)(E.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 2014) is a workplace discrimination action. After discovery began, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel and a motion for sanctions against Defendants for failing to preserve electronic discovery and failing to issue a litigation hold of key players to the action.
-
Deletion of ESI Assists Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Infringement Case
UMG Recording, et al., v. Escape Media, Inc., No, 11 Civ. 8407 (S.D.N.Y. Sept 29, 2014) is a trademark infringement case. Plaintiffs are license holders alleging Defendants illegally provided millions of users large amounts of copyrighted electronic data (music recordings.) After electronic discovery was produced, Plaintiffs alleged three instances of spoliation of
-
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
-
Can You Subpoena Metadata from Emails Protected under the Stored Communications Act?
Metadata has quickly become a fundamental aspect of both the discovery process and expert computer forensics. However, often times we see that technological advances can outpace changes in the rule of law, whether coming through legislative enactment or judicial decree. In Systems Products and Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph Scramlin, Case
-
When Is Forensic Imaging Not Warranted?
Forensic imagining typically entails preserving the contents of a custodian hard drive or server. Expert computer forensic services can also be complex as far as sensitive information is concerned. This begs the question of when does forensic imaging become an unwarranted option in the discovery process. The court answered this
-
Ohio Appeals Court Considers Forensic Imaging as Sanction
When is seizure of hard drives for forensic imaging warranted as sanction during electronic discovery? Such was the issue before the Court of Appeals of Ohio in an Order dated April 24, 2014 in the case Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn, et al., No. 100333 (Ct.App.Ohio 8th District). In
-
When is Plaintiff Computer Forensic Imaging Warranted?
Federal Courts Require More than Mere Possibility of Misconduct In a recent order from an Ohio state case Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn et al., No 1000333 (Ct. App. Ohio April 24, 2014), the court reviewed federal case law as guidance to determine when a plaintiff computer forensic imaging
-
What is the Procedure to Obtain a Forensic Imaging Order in eDiscovery?
In the Ohio state court case Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn, et al., No. 100333(Ct. App. Ohio April 24, 2014) the appeals court considered whether the trial court’s order to compel forensic imaging of Defendant’s computer was proper. The court reviewed the two-part procedure to determine if forensic imaging