-
Plaintiff Motion to Compel Denied for Overbreadth when Manual Review of 278,000 Records Required
In Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a debt collection service, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making multiple phone calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone to collect on a debt, leaving multiple voicemail messages. The messages were pre-recorded; Plaintiff claimed that Defendant used equipment that
-
Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Re-Organize Document Production
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Universal Rehab Services, Inc., et. al., Case No. 15-10993 (E.D. Mich., Sept. 26, 2016), Plaintiff sued Defendants for allegedly engaging in a scheme to submit fraudulent no-fault insurance benefit claims. During discovery, Defendants propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon
-
Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel Turnover of Examination of iPad
In Rocket Real Estate, LLC et. al. v. Maestres, Case No. 15-62488 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2016), Plaintiffs began doing business with Defendant to purchase and re-sell distressed properties. Plaintiffs bought a property and renovated it, and Defendant moved into the property. Defendant refused to sell the property or to pay
-
New York State Court Grants Motion to Compel Audit Trails in Medical Malpractice Case
In Gilbert v. Highland Hospital, Case No. 2015/03896, 2016 NY Slip Op 26147 (Supreme Court of New York, Monroe County, Mar. 24, 2016), a medical malpractice case, Plaintiff sued Defendant hospital on behalf of Plaintiff’s decedent, who presented at the hospital with nausea, abdominal pain and vomiting and was released
-
Shareholder Motion to Compel Denied by District of Nebraska
In Tracy v. Telemetrix, Inc. et. al., Case No. 12-359 (D. Nebraska, Nov. 13, 2015), a shareholder derivative suit, Plaintiff sued Defendants for defrauding and mismanaging Telemetrix for the benefit of the individual and corporate defendants. At a discovery hearing, the magistrate judge ordered production of certain email threads and
-
Southern District of New York Grants Motion to Compel Filed by Injured Prison Inmate
In Rembert v. Cheverko et. al., Case No. 12-9196 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2015), a civil suit filed by an inmate in the Westchester County Department of Corrections system who alleged that he injured his arm and did not receive proper treatment for it, the Southern District of New York considered
-
Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Pre-Class Certification Discovery
In Peters v. Credit Protection Association LP, Case No. 2:13-cv-767 (S.D. Ohio November 26, 2014), a putative class action lawsuit alleging Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the FCC rules by making artificial voice and pre-taped calls, Plaintiff’s eDiscovery requests sought information regarding all debt collection calls made in Ohio
-
Plaintiff To Receive FRCP 37 Attorney Fees After Defeating Defendant’s Unjustified Motion To Compel
Under Federal Rule of Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), a court denying a motion to compel may award attorney fees to the prevailing party provided that the court does not conclude that the motion to compel was “substantially justified” or that “other circumstances [would] make an award of expense unjust.” The party who lost the motion
-
Can Plaintiffs Keep Facebook Profiles “Private” to Shield from eDiscovery?
“Postings on Facebook and other social media present a unique challenge for courts, due to their relative novelty and their ability to be shared by or with someone besides the original poster.” Such was the issue facing a district court in Higgins v. Koch Development Corporation, No. 3:11-cv-81-RLY-WGH(S.D.In. July 5,
-
Plaintiff Awarded Fees for Unorganized and Misclassified Defense Production
In our last blog, we began a discussion of the state court case Hull et al. v. WTI, Inc., A13A0003 (Ga.Ct.App. June 18, 2013). In this complex business litigation case, the defendants produced 156,000 documents that the plaintiffs characterized as unorganized and a violation of defendant’s discovery duties. Additionally, the