-
Plaintiffs Granted “Quick Peek” of Defendant’s Documents Per FRE Rule 502(d)
In Fairholme Funds, Inc. et. al., v. United States, No. 13-456c, (Ct. of Federal Claims, 2017), Plaintiffs (financial company affiliated parties) sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment, contending that Defendant (United States government) engaged in taking their property without just compensation. In response to a Court order issued after Plaintiffs
-
District Court Orders In Camera Examination of Privilege Log Documents, Overturning Magistrate’s Order
In Keathley v. Grange Insurance Co., of Mich., No. 15-cv-11888 (Dist. Ct. E.D. Mich., March 30, 2017), Plaintiff seeks to recover under an insurance policy issued by Defendant Grange Insurance Company (“Grange”) for water damage Plaintiff claims happened at her home as a result of burst pipes. Grange has denied
-
Court Amends Previous Discovery Order to Include Plaintiff’s Phone and Access to Non-Party Witness, Denies Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
In Zamora v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., (W.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2017), the United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division denied Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Before the Court is Defendants Stellar Management Group, Inc. d/b/a Quality Service Integrity and Stellar Management Group III, Inc. (“QSI Defendants”)’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure
-
Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Archived Facebook and Twitter Data
In Matthews v. J & J Service Solutions, No. 16-621-BAJ-EWD, (M. D. Louisiana, 2017), the court examined multiple motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. In September of 2016, Plaintiff, Dana Matthews (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff alleges that
-
Personnel Files of Non-Party Employees May Be Discoverable Under Employment Claims
In Tolston v. Charles Drew Health Center, No. 8:16CV176, (D. Neb. June 30, 2017), Plaintiff sued her former employer for terminating her employment in violation of federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex and retaliation. Monique Tolston (“Plaintiff”) worked as a family practice physician for Charles Drew Health
-
Court Deems Broad E-Discovery Requests Proportional If Important Issues Are at Stake
First Niagara Risk Management v. Folino, (E.D.P.A. April 14, 2016) is a dispute between an employer and a former employee. First Niagara (“Plaintiff”) brings this suit against John Folino (“Defendant”), who until recently served as plaintiff’s First Vice-President and Regional Director of Insurance for Western Pennsylvania. Defendant Folino assumed this
-
Court Compels Debt Collector to Create Computer Program to Generate Class Data
In Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against United Collection Bureau, alleging it had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) The TCPA prohibits using artificial recordings or automated dialers to call mobile phones. Plaintiff argued that Defendant made multiple automated calls to her mobile
-
Facebook Motion for Native Format ESI from IRS Denied
Facebook, Inc. et. al. v. Internal Revenue Service, Case No. 16-05884 (N.D. Cali., June 19, 2017) is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case arising from an IRS audit of Facebook’s 2008-2010 tax years. After the audit, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, asserting that Facebook understated its income
-
Motion to Compel Data Denied as Burdensome and Costly in Servicing MDL
In re RFC and ResCap Liquidating Trust Actions, Case No. 13-3451 (D. Minn., June 21, 2017) is an MDL suit related to the servicing of mortgage loans. RFC was in the business of acquiring residential mortgage loans from certain lenders, who were responsible for underwriting the loans. The agreements between
-
Motion to Compel Search Terms and Custodians Denied in Trade Secrets Case
In PolyOne Corporation v. Lu et. al., Case No. 14-10369 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2017), Plaintiff alleged that Defendants stole its trade secrets and reverse engineered one of its products to develop their own formulation which they eventually sold to a third party in competition with Plaintiff. Defendants counterclaimed that