-
Sorting Out FRCP 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(ii): Do Both Apply to ESI?
In the case The Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLC et al., No. CIV 12-0040 JB/LFG(D.N.M. March 6, 2014), a discovery dispute arose regarding Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 34(b)(2)(E). In response to plaintiff electronic discovery requests where the parties had agreed upon the format, the defendants scanned approximately 20,000 hard copy
-
Plaintiff Seeks Sanctions for Destroyed Audio Tapes in Discrimination Case
In a particularly contentious employment discrimination case Sokn v. Fieldcrest Community Unit School District No. 8, et al., 2014 WL 201534(C.D.Ill. January 17, 2014), Plaintiff was a school principal who alleged gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation by Defendants. Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation denying sanctions for the
-
Proposed Amendment to FRCP 16(b): Beneficial for Plaintiff Trial Attorneys?
Though public comments to the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are now closed, plaintiff trial attorneys are still examining how the changes will affect current discovery procedures. Having thoroughly reviewed and discussed the controversy of Rule 37(e), we now turn our attention to Rule 16(b). Changes to
-
Is Bifurcation Helpful or Harmful to Plaintiff eDiscovery?
In Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Civil Action No. 12-2132 (FLW)(D.N.J. February 4, 2014), Plaintiff alleged two unsolicited faxes sent by Defendant regarding the drug Levaquin violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which might warrant a class action lawsuit. The defense argued the faxes were informational (regarding
-
The Controversy of Federal Rule 37(e)
Would the Proposed Amendment Harm Plaintiff eDiscovery? As of February 18, 2014, the public comments to the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are now closed (extended from the original deadline of the 15th). One particularity controversial proposed amendment is regarding Rule 37(e). Plaintiff trial attorneys and in-house
-
Plaintiff Requests for Computer Mirror Imaging Orders
Courts Support Plaintiff Forensic Imaging When Presented with Risk of Evidence Spoliation Forensic examination and computer mirror imaging take exact copies of all information contained on the hard drives of computers, retrieving not only documents, but also computer data on internet and program activity, use of removable flash drives, printing
-
Plaintiffs Establish Spoliation in Transvaginal Mesh MDL, But Not Prejudice Across the Board
All this week, our blog has been reviewing the plaintiff electronic discovery disputes in In Re: Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327 (S.D.W.Va. February 4, 2014). Our last two posts reviewed the court’s reasoning in finding when the duty to preserve arose, and that defendant
-
Plaintiff Text Message Spoliation at Issue in Discrimination Suit
In an order dated January 16, 2014 in the district court case Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique A De Salud, 2014 WL 171599 (D. Puerto Rico), plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against his employer alleging discrimination claims under Title VII. The defendants, after receiving plaintiff discovery production, subpoenaed a third party
-
Defendants Fail to Specify Formatting for Plaintiff ESI; Subsequent Complaints “Unavailing”
When a party seeks electronic discovery production in specific formatting and/or with metadata, that party would be wise to specify such logistics at the outset when sending out requests. In a recent example where the defendants failed to specify formatting logistics from the plaintiff ESI production, see XL Specialty Insurance
-
Defendant Theory of Alleged Plaintiff ESI Spoliation Deemed “Nonsensical”
Does the destruction of evidence constitute sanctionable spoliation if the information was likely favorable to the party alleged to have destroyed it? A court faced this very conundrum in Lozoya et al. v. Allphase Landscape Construction, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-1048-JLK (D.Col. January 21, 2014). In this employment law case,