-
The 21st Century Equivalent of Making Copies? Electronic Discovery Cost-Shifting Examined by Federal Circuit
There is an ongoing debate over what constitutes “making copies” within the scope of Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 1920(4). The latest case to review an award which includes certain electronic discovery costs is CBT Flint Partnership, LLC v. Return Path, Inc. and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC, No. 2013-1036 (Fed.Ct. December
-
Plaintiff Pursues Sanctions for Spoliation; Is the Evidence Sufficient?
In Rex Brown v. West Corporation, No. 8:11CV284 (D.Neb. December 4, 2013), plaintiff’s motion for sanctions came on for hearing. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s responses were insufficient to comply with the court’s prior order regarding plaintiff eDiscovery requests which sought 26 custodians and a list of defendant’s 36 search terms which defendant objected to as unreasonable
-
Court Considers Question of “Discovery About Discovery”
In the wrongful death case, Ruiz-Bueno, III v. Scott, No. 2:12-cv-0809 (2013 WL 6055402(S.D.Ohio)), plaintiff Ruiz-Bueno sought discovery on the efforts made by defendant Scott to comply with earlier plaintiff eDiscovery requests, specifically the procedures and methods Scott used to performed eDiscovery searches for responsive documents. Defendant Scott objected to plaintiff’s interrogatories regarding its methods and
-
Chancery Court Bucks Trend, Only Allows Specific Electronic Formats Based on Need
In a Chancery Court case entitled The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill, C.A. No. 3730-VCN (Ct. Chan. DE Nov. 27, 2013), Plaintiff Ravenswood was not satisfied with the very limited number of documents produced by defendant Winmill. However, no evidence was offered to show Winmill was withholding any specific information.
-
To Successfully Enforce Compliance, Plaintiffs Must Specify Early The Exact Format of eDiscovery Required
Native format electronic documents are often the source of disputes between the parties during discovery. One common issue is defendants intentionally providing electronic documents in a format designed to remove valuable metadata information. To overcome a defendant’s efforts to obstruct discovery, plaintiffs should clearly state at the outset their preferred
-
Court Orders Mirror Imaging of Defendant Electronic Devices on Ex Parte Basis
In Neuroscience, Inc. and Pharmasan Labs, Inc. v. Forrest and Cerulean Investments, Inc., No. 12-cv-813-bbc (Dist. Court, W.D. Wisconsin Dec. 3, 2013), plaintiff Neuroscience asserts defendant Forrest withheld and destroyed evidence in discovery. Neuroscience filed an ex parte motion demanding sanctions and discovery relief. This RICO litigation stems from allegations
-
Agreement on eDiscovery Demonstrates Cooperative Goals of Rule 26(f) Conference
In Griffin Technology Holdings Inc. et al v. IWICS, Inc., No C13-1465 RAJ (Dist. Court W.D. Washington Nov. 25, 2013), plaintiff Griffin and defendant IWICS have ongoing litigation regarding a contract dispute. The litigation is still in the early stages of discovery, and the present agreement and order are an
-
Defendant Must Provide Compelling Reason to Sustain Native Format Objection in eDiscovery
In Saliga v. Chemtura Corporation, No. 3:12cv832 (RNC) (Dist. Court, D. Connecticut Nov. 25, 2013), plaintiff Saliga brought suit against defendant Chemtura, alleging racial, gender and religious discrimination by her former employer. Every effort by the parties to agree on an electronic document production structure in Rule 26(f) conferences failed,
-
Defendant’s Excuses are Insufficient, Must Provide Electronic Documents with Metadata
In RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company, No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR (Dist. Court, M.D. Louisiana Nov. 15, 2013), plaintiff RPM Pizza (doing business as Domino’s) sued defendant Argonaut for payment on an insurance claim. RPM Pizza was accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and they expected Argonaut
-
Court Disagreed that Plaintiff Metadata Reflected Attorney Misconduct
Can metadata steer parties in the wrong direction, or offer information that can be misconstrued or interpreted in the wrong way? This was a question in the case HSBC Bank USA v. Santana Cline, et al., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00978 (S.D. Ohio October 25, 2013), where defendants alleged attorney misconduct