-
Plaintiff Permitted to View Image of Non-Party’s Computer in Business Torts Case
In Legacy Data Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No. 17-00069 (W.D. N.C., May 22, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Western District of North Carolina for various business torts after Defendant allegedly poached several of Plaintiff’s former employees. In January 2017, Plaintiff served a subpoena upon one of its
-
Court Denies Motion to Compel by Employment Plaintiff Subject to Discovery Protocol
In Mirmina v. Genpact, LLC, Case No. 16-00614 (D. Conn., June 13, 2017), an employment law case involving, age, gender and race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Plaintiff alleged that he was treated unfairly and discriminated against at work and
-
Partial Non-Native Production with Load Files Insufficient, Defendant Ordered to Make All Native Production in Wrongful Termination Suit
In Bailey v. Alpha Technologies Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-0727 (W.D. Wa., June 1, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendants for wrongful termination, failure to pay overtime, willful withholding of wages, and defamation. Regarding e-discovery, the parties’ entered into a protocol agreement which outlined the acceptable ESI production formats. The agreement
-
Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel Granted in Part for Production of ESI
In Elhannon, LLC et. al. v. The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, Case No. 14-00262 (D. Vermont, Apr. 18, 2017), Plaintiffs hired Defendant to design and execute a pest management program to protect the trees in Plaintiffs’ nursery. When the trees suffered an outbreak of insects and diseases, Plaintiffs sued,
-
Defendant Must Produce ESI Not In Its Physical Custody But Under Its Control, Computer Imaging Denied Because Need Not Proportional
In First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., et. al., Case No. 15-638 (E.D. La., May 24, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendants for damages it allegedly incurred as a result of “deficient and defective” software designed, manufactured and hosted by Defendants. Plaintiff used the software to process cash advances
-
Eighth Circuit Finds No Prejudice as to Exxon’s Late Document Production
In Webb et. al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et. al., Case No. 15-2879 (8th Cir., May 11, 2017), a class action suit brought by landowners who entered into easement contracts with Exxon for the construction of a pipeline to transport oil from Texas to Illinois, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach
-
The Choice is Yours: ESI Production Under FRCP 34
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) is all about choice: a party can choose to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in the usual course of business, or it can be organized and labeled to respond to the corresponding discovery requests. A seemingly-simple rule, FRCP 34 is often cited as the
-
Overdue and Boilerplate Discovery Responses Result in Finding of Waiver of Objections, Denial of Protective Order
In Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, Section J(4), Case No. 15-1533 (E.D. La., Apr. 21 2017), after Plaintiff sued Defendant Housing Authority of New Orleans (“New Orleans”), various parties were added to the case as counter-defendants. Counter-Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) filed a Motion for
-
Court Orders Defendant to Create Search Program to Query Database For Discovery Response in Robocall Class Action
In Meredith et. al. v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 16-01102 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 13, 2017) Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which makes it unlawful to generate a telephone call using an automated dialing system or an artificial
-
Discovery Order Modified to Reduce Production to Random Sampling of Medical Records
In qui tam action Duffy v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Case No. 14-2256 (D. Kansas, Mar. 31, 2017), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant submitted false information to the government to maximize reimbursement for federal medical care programs. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. During discovery, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant had