Category: Multi-District Litigation

  • Defendants’ Motion to Compel Rigorous Social Media Discovery Searches From Class Plaintiffs Denied

    31 Dec 2021

    In In re: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. FL Nov. 15, 2021) Defendants served the 10 named Class Plaintiffs with Requests for Production and Interrogatories related to the Second Amended Consolidated Economic Loss Class Action Complaint and the Amended Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint.  At issue

  • eDiscovery Question: Is Negligent Destruction of “Irrelevant” Evidence Spoliation?

    28 Jun 2013

    Our last blog reviewed the facts in the case Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, 2013 WL 2244333 (S.D.Cal 2013) regarding the issue of automatic destruction of electronic data from audio tapes. Plaintiffs sought spoliation sanctions for recordings not saved after the case was filed on September 13, 2010, as defendant only

  • Plaintiffs Sought Spoliation Sanction for Deleted Audio Recordings: Warranted or Not?

    26 Jun 2013

    In the case Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, 2013 WL 2244333 (S.D.Cal 2013), a court considered an electronic discovery issue of whether spoliation sanctions were warranted against the defendant for the automatic destruction of audio recordings saved as electronic data. At issue in the underlying case, filed on September 13, 2010,

  • Discovery of Foreign Documents Stayed in Travel Website MDL

    8 Mar 2013

    Plaintiffs who filed two class action lawsuits have now been combined as a multidistrict litigation, alleging certain online travel sites have colluded with major hotels to engage in price-fixing in violation of federal anti-trust laws. The MDL is named In re: Online Travel Company Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation, Case Number

  • Preservation Orders Issued for eDiscovery in Fungal Meningitis Cases

    18 Jan 2013

    The plaintiffs in the potential multidistrict litigation In Re New England Compounding Pharmacy Cases secured a key win early on: the judge ordered preservation orders for tangible and electronic evidence held by defendants. The case stems from an incident last Fall when the defendant, New England Compounding, recalled three lots of

  • Plaintiff eDiscovery Discussion of Defendant Evidence Spoliation Continues

    2 Jan 2013

    Our last blog laid out the specific facts and timeline of Bozic v. City of Washington, Pennsylvania (2012 WL 6050610)(W.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 2012). In this case, plaintiff alleged the city as defendant engaged in electronic discovery spoliation when the City Solicitor destroyed a tape recording of a meeting that was

  • When the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arise for Allegations of eDiscovery Spoliation?

    31 Dec 2012

    In Bozic v. City of Washington, Pennsylvania (2012 WL 6050610)(W.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 2012) the plaintiff was a female firefighter and the defendant was the employer-city. Plaintiff had previously filed an EEOC charge against the city, and she was later hired. A few months later, the defendant claimed the plaintiff was

  • Reviewing the Top 5 Plaintiff eDiscovery Cases of 2012

    21 Dec 2012

    Our blog discusses the latest cases (good and bad)  that affect plaintiff trial attorneys every week, and the following is our Top 5 Plaintiff eDiscovery cases of 2012: 5. Race Tires America, Inc. LLC v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. (Race Tires II), No. 11-2316, 2012 WL 887593 (3d Cir. Mar.

  • Email Chains Burn BP in Massive Plaintiff Multidistrict Litigation

    17 Dec 2012

    Oil giant BP is facing a massive MDL lawsuit in the Lone Star state. Plaintiffs are 47,830 sick residents, plant contractors and workers from the Texas City, Texas area. A fire at the town’s BP oil refinery caused the company to release over 513,795 pounds of toxic chemicals into the

  • Court Rules Handing Over iPhone Outside Scope of eDiscovery Requests

    14 Dec 2012

    In AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, (2012 NY Slip Op 07766)(Nov. 15, 2012), plaintiff was an investment firm alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of confidential information by the defendant, a former employee. As part of the suit, plaintiff secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant from retaining or using