-
Court Concludes Defendant Did Not Take Reasonable Steps to Preserve Evidence in Anticipation of Litigation
In IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2023), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). Plaintiffs alleged Google did not adequately preserve communications that were exchanged internally on its Chat message system, and therefore
-
Proportionality Not A Basis For Relevance Redactions
In KELLMAN v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., Case No. 17-cv-06584-LB (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2021), before the Court were several issues: First, to what extent could Defendants redact non-responsive and irrelevant information from their productions, and second, whether Defendants had sufficiently described in its privilege log documents
-
Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Inferences Denied After Finding Plaintiff Lacked Sufficient Evidence
In EMERSON CREEK POTTERY, INC., v. EMERSON CREEK EVENTS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:20-cv-54 (W.D. VA, Feb. 18, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour motion for spoliation inferences. Plaintiff contended that counsel for Defendants failed to inform Defendants of their obligation to preserve ESI, and that counsel’s failure
-
Motion to Compel Production of Slack Messages Granted
In BENEBONE LLC v. PET QWERKS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 8:20-cv-00850-AB-AFMx (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2021), before the Court was Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to produce Slack communications. “Slack is a cloud-based software system that allows a company to organize its electronic discussions into user-defined categories called ‘channels.’” Plaintiff
-
Rule 37 Sanctions Awarded Arising From Plaintiff’s Failure to Preserve and Deletion of Snapchat Data
In JOHN DOE v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY, No. 2:17-CV-33-JPK (N.D. Ind. Jul. 2, 2021) before the Court was Defendants’ Request for Issuance of Order to Show Cause Regarding Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Order and Spoliation of Evidence. At issue was social media discovery from Plaintiff sought by Defendants, Purdue University and related
-
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Rigorous Social Media Discovery Searches From Class Plaintiffs Denied
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
-
Fee Shifting For Response To Subpoena Not Appropriate Where The Non-Party Had Actual Interest In Outcome Of The Case
In SANDOZ v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, Civil Action No. 19-10170 (D.N.J. April 6, 2021) before the Special Master was Defendant United Therapeutic’s motion to compel non-party Liquida to bear the cost of responding to Defendant’s subpoena. During the pendency of the lawsuit, Defendant learned that non-party Liquida would be acquiring Plaintiff.
-
Arbitrary Limits On The Number of Custodians And Use of ESI Costs In Different Case To Justify Burden And Splitting of Costs Rejected by Magistrate Judge
In COUNTESS CARY v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP, No. 19 C 3014 (N.D. Illinois February 22, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s production of ESI, which presented multiple issues. With respect to the issue of the number of custodians, Defendant proposed an arbitrary
-
The Fact That Search Terms May Yield A Large Production Does Not Mean The Search Terms Are Too Broad
In Green v. Meeks, Case No. 20-cv-00463-SPM (S.D. Illinois. Jan. 15, 2021), Plaintiff moved for an entry of an ESI protocol allowing for use of search terms to applied to email accounts of 15 individuals employed by Defendant or the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants objected that the proposed search
-
Defendant’s Request For An Order Foregoing Plaintiffs’ Post TAR Review and Cost Shifting Denied by Magistrate Judge
In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2020) before the Court was Defendant Teva’s request for an Order to forego additional review of documents that based on its own unilaterally developed and administered TAR, were predicted to be non-responsive. Teva alternatively sought to