ILS has provided a handy searchable archive of important decisions on discovery matters.
We do so as a convenience and hope that you will find it interesting, helpful and informative.
However, our case briefs are not intended to replace legal research or relieve counsel of their duty to independently evaluate the law as it applies to their particular cases.
- AI
- Artificial Intelligence
- Attorney Fees
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Document Production
- eDiscovery
- eDiscovery Case Law
- Electronic Discovery
- ESI
- Foreign Document Translation
- Forensics
- FRCP
- ILS News
- Litigation Holds
- Metadata
- Motions to Compel
- Multi-District Litigation
- New Blogs
- Predictive Coding
- Proportionality
- Sanctions
- Social Media
- Spoliation
- Text Messages
- Uncategorized
- Video Surveillance
-
Court Affirmed Magistrate Judge’s Orders Imposing Costs for Expenses Incurred in Connection with TAR Process
In LAWSON v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 18-1100-EFM (D. Kansas, Oct. 18, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s orders that shifted and fixed the amount of e-discovery expenses against Plaintiff. On June 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge previously granted Defendant’s motion to shift TAR
-
Bill of Costs was Approved in Part After Finding Certain E-Discovery Costs were Reasonably Attributed to Electronic Copying and/or Transcriptions
In CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG, & REIS, CO., LPA., Case No. 1:17 CV 817 (N.D. Ohio, Eastern Div., Oct. 19, 2018), before the Court was Defendant’s Bill of Costs submitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The total costs Defendant sought
-
Court Denies Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse
In COOLEY v. TARGET CORPORATION ET AL., Civil No. 20-2152 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 2022), a case involving a copyright dispute, Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order dated June 10, 2022, that denied her Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse. As an
-
Defendant’s “Self-Collection” Efforts Insufficient After Court Found Defendant’s Counsel Failed to Supervise or Advise Defendant’s ESI Search
In EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. M1 5100 CORP., d/b/a JUMBO SUPERMARKET, INC., Civil No. 19-cv-81320-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN, before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) of 1967, as amended, 29
-
Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs Denied After Court Found Costs Did not Fall Within Categories of Awardable Costs Listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920
In OBESLO v. GREAT-WEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC., Civil Actions Nos. Civil Action Nos. 16-cv-00230-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-01215-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-03162-CMA-SKC (D. Colorado, Aug. 25, 2021), before the Court was Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs. This case was a shareholder derivative action brought under the Investment Company Act (“ICA”). After an 11-day bench
-
Request For Forensic Exam Denied by Court Where Moving Party Failed To Exhaust Other Less Intrusive Means Of Collecting The Same Information
In TIREBOOTS BY UNIVERSAL CANVAS, INC. v. TIRESOCKS, INC., TIRESOCKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 20 CV 7404 (N.D. Illinois, June 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ electronically stored information (“ESI”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2). Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller
-
Defendant’s “Wait and See” Approach Rejected In Favor of Entry of ESI Protocol
In WEIDMAN ET. AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich. S. Div. Feb. 3, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of an ESI Protocol. This action arose from an alleged defect with the brake master cylinder in the Ford F-150 trucks, model years 2013
-
Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Denied In Light Of Failure To Prove Intent To Deprive
In MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS, INC. ET AL. v. VEEVA SOLUTIONS, INC., N. 17 Civ. 589 (LSG) (S.D. NY, Sept. 22, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant spoliated evidence when Defendant failed to prevent one of its employees, Anthony
-
Court Rules, In Part, That Emails Among Non-Attorneys In A Corporation Maybe Privileged If Made At Direction of Counsel To Gather Information To Aid Counsel in Providing Legal Services
In ALLGOOD v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case 2:19-cv-02323-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Defendants’ purportedly privileged documents to the Court for in camera review. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Baptist Memorial Medical Group. On Oct. 10, 2018, Plaintiff
-
Court Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions After Finding Rule 37(e) Did Not Support Adverse Inference Instruction
In HAMRICK v. SPLASH TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., No. 3:20-CV-00417-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. The action arose from a vehicular incident. Defendant Elmehalawy was the truck driver for Splash Transport, Inc. (“Splash”). Defendant James was the truck driver for