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.
- 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
-
Costs of OCR Ruled Taxable by Court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)
In U.S. FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC and U.S. EXHANGE HOLDINGS v. BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., No. 04 C 6756 (N.D. Illinois, Jan. 6, 2022), Defendants sought costs in the amount of $307,033.40 after the Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants that
-
Motion for Recusal Based On the Metadata Properties of the Court’s Opinions Denied by the Court
In ARCONIC CORP. v. NOVELIS INC., Civil Action 17-1434 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2022), before the Court was a motion to recuse filed by Plaintiff. In the trade secrets litigation, Plaintiff’s motion arose from the fact that the special master’s staff was listed in the Author metadata property in several
-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part II
Part I addressed the Court’s ruling in FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Fed. 2022), under Rule 37(e) regarding the duty to preserve. Part II below addresses the Court’s ruling regarding Rule 37(c) and the failure to produce. Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure
-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part I
In FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Feb. 2022), before the Court was Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and (e), which presented a multitude of alleged sanctionable conduct by Plaintiff. Part 1 of this post will focus on the Court’s analysis under
-
Court Grants, Among Others, Plaintiff’s Motion for Unredacted Versions of Documents Already Protected by a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order as well as Documents Showing Computer Queries Used by Defendants
In McCRIMMON and DETTMANN v. CENTURION OF FLORIDA, No. 3:20-cv-36-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022) before the Court were several issues including discovery disputes regarding search terms, unredacted versions of documents covered by HIPAA, and computer queries conducted by Defendants. Plaintiffs, co-administrators of decedent’s estate, proceeded on an amended complaint
-
Motion Regarding Lack of Metadata and Incomplete Email Threads Denied For Lack of Specificity
In RAINS v. WESTMINSTER COLLEGE and KOERNER, No. 2:20-cv-00520 (D. Utah Feb. 1 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel and/or for Sanctions for Spoliation. The case arose from Plaintiff’s allegations that she was wrongfully terminated from a faculty position by her former employer. Plaintiff moved
-
Request For Award Of Attorneys’ Fees for Entire Case As A Result of Spoliation Deemed Improper
In EMUVEUYAN v. STEVE EWING; GENEVA ROCK PRODUCTS INC., and CLYDE COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00616-HCN-DAO (D. Utah Jan. 5, 2022) before the Court was Defendant’s motion disputing Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees. In a prior order, Plaintiff was awarded attorneys’ fees incurred when he brought a motion for sanctions arising
-
Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling Regarding Insufficient Video Footage Denied
In BIRREN v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2022), before the Court were Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order on CCTV spoliation, and Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order. On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated a maritime personal injury action against Defendant. In
-
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike “Material Changes” From Errata Sheets Granted
In PAJAK v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-160 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 10, 2022), before the Magistrate Judge were issues arising from Plaintiff’s efforts to conduct discovery related to her complaints alleging Defendants’ intentional spoliation of evidence. The spoliation claims focused on Defendants’ efforts to gather, preserve, and
-
Default Judgment Recommended by Magistrate Judge Following Defendants’ Repeated Violations of Discovery Orders
In STATE FARM MUTUAL, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., v. MAX REHAB PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC, ET AL., No.: 18-13257 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was the issue of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and various court orders and whether default judgment in favor of Plaintiff was