-
SNDY Denies Forensic Examination of Email and Documents
The Southern District of New York considered a pro se Plaintiff’s motion requesting a forensic examination of Defendant’s computers and other electronic equipment in the disability discrimination matter Thompson v. Workmen’s Circle Multicare Center, No. 11 Civ. 6885 (DAB)(HBP)(S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2015). Defendant had produced certain emails in hard copy format,
-
DC Court Declines to Dismiss a Case for eDiscovery Misconduct
In a recent Order entered in Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-02172, May 27, 2015, the District Court for the District of Columbia entered an adverse inference instruction but declined to dismiss an action after Plaintiff engaged in eDiscovery misconduct. Plaintiff, a U.S.
-
Court Rejects Defendants’ Argument that No Spoliation Occurred Because Deleted Files Could Still Be Restored
In its Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro, Case No. 13-cv-00205, published May 18, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana considered whether spoliation had occurred in this copyright infringement case after Plaintiffs informed the court that a hard drive produced by
-
Forensic Mirror Image of Hard Drive Ordered Due To Failure to Institute Timely Litigation Hold
In Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13cv1332 (RNC) (D. Conn. May 19, 2015), Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to issue a timely litigation hold and that the plaintiff ESI production was “careless and indifferent.” Defendants presented evidence that the Plaintiff e-commerce company anticipated filing the lawsuit
-
Two Attorney-Defendants Found to Have Intentionally Spoliated Electronic Data
In the business litigation HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al., 2015 NY Slip Op 50750(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany County, May 19, 2015), the New York Supreme Court in Albany County considered Plaintiffs’ accusations that two individual Defendants had spoliated electronic data. At the outset of the litigation, the parties had
-
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 Declines to Award Sanctions, Observing that Human Error Is Common During ESI Review
The District of Nebraska considered whether to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule to Show Cause in Malone v. Kanter Ingredients, Inc., et al., No. 4:12CV3190 (D.Neb. Mar. 31, 2015). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to follow the court’s eDiscovery order by failing to produce certain email communications and invoices. In advance of the
-
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,
-
Who Pays? Courts Reviewing Costs Associated with ESI
28 U.S.C. § 1920: Taxable Costs In a world where parties to a litigation may spend thousands of dollars on processing their Electronically Stored Information (ESI), courts are grappling with whether they can properly deem those costs as “taxable” pursuant to 28 U.S. § 1920, a statute passed in 1948
-
ESI Costs and Sanctions Awarded to Plaintiff in 7th Circuit District Court Case
In Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. American Machine Products & Service, Inc. No. 13C7342 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2015), the Northern District of Illinois considered whether to award ESI costs to the prevailing Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. Because the 7th Circuit has yet to consider the taxability of eDiscovery costs under §