As electronically stored information (ESI) is now a standard part of the discovery process in most civil litigation, it is inexcusable to not issue proper ESI litigation holds and deliver the electronic data in a timely manner. For a case demonstrating “severe shortcomings” for defendant’s ESI production, read the case Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal
defense production
- admin
- November 20, 2013
Plaintiff Attorney Fees Imposed for Defense Production’s “Severe Shortcomings”
Read More
- admin
- October 4, 2013
Court Denies Plaintiff ESI Motion for a Number of Procedural Failures
In a concise order denying plaintiff’s “Motion to Enter ESI Order and Set the Deadline,” a district court enumerates a number of important procedural failures. There are but a few bare facts delineated in the interlocutory order in Smyth v. Merchants Credit Corporation, Case No. C11-1879RSI (W.D. Wash. September 10, 2013), but there are lessons
Read More
- admin
- July 22, 2013
Federal Rule 34 Regarding ESI: What is the Correct Means of Document Production?
In an interim order by a magistrate judge dated June 28, 2013 in Kwasneiwski et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, et al., 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. 2013), the defendants responded to plaintiff discovery requests by producing a large amount of documents and data that was not organized to match the requests. Plaintiffs objected to the format
Read More
- admin
- March 11, 2013
Court Recommends eDiscovery Consultant Help with Defense Production
In the employment discrimination case Brown v. FPI Management, No. 4:11-cv-5414 YGR (N.D. Cal 2013), the court issued an order regarding a discovery dispute. The defendants objected to plaintiff electronic discovery requests seeking email communications between the defendant employer and third-parties employees about promotions within the company. The requests were pursuant to plaintiffs’ claim of
Read More
- admin
- February 4, 2013
Compelling the Deposition of a Foreign Managing Agent
In Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, (2013 WL 85378 (N.D.Ill.), an Illinois District court heard, and rejected, common defense excuses to evade a deposition and electronic data discovery obligations. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant Crimson, which company is closely aligned with a non-defendant Chinese corporation, Sycamore. In a prior ruling in
Read More
- admin
- January 25, 2013
A Cautionary Tale: Attorney Misconduct Could Potentially Warrant Class Action Dismissal
In the case Reliable Money Order Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co. Inc., No. 12-2599 (Jan. 9, 2013), four named plaintiffs filed a lawsuit regarding unlawful “fax blasts” allegedly sent by defendant. During discovery conducted prior to the class action certification hearing, plaintiff trial attorneys received copies of the defendant’s back up disks and hard drives,
Read More
- admin
- January 16, 2013
Plaintiff eDiscovery Requests Lead to Wal-Mart Named as Defendant in Class Action
Last year, a group of workers filed a class action lawsuit in Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. CV 11-8557-CAS (DTBx), alleging wage and hour violations in three warehouses located in California. During the time these allegations were taking place, Schneider was working for retail giant Wal-Mart, whom the lawsuit sought to add as an
Read More
- admin
- January 7, 2013
Plaintiff eDiscovery and Spoliation Questions in Employment Discrimination
In Day v. LSI Corporation, 2012 WL 6674434 (Dec. 20, 2012 D. Ariz.), plaintiff filed an employment lawsuit against the defendant-employee. In October 2010, plaintiff was let go and he sent an informal, internal complaint alleging racial discrimination and a claim for stock options that were allegedly granted but revoked. Plaintiff sent an electronic letter
Read More
- admin
- December 28, 2012
Are Plaintiff Email Threads Protected by the Marital Communications Privilege?
While our blog typically focuses on plaintiff eDiscovery in class action lawsuits and MDL, in some instances, criminal courts also address electronic discovery issues that overlap into the civil realm. This is the case in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case United States v. Hamilton, No, 11-4878 (Dec. 13, 2012). In the case, a
Read More
- admin
- December 26, 2012
Administrative Judge Limits Complainant/Plaintiff ESI Production in UTC Action
As part of a patent complaint before U.S. International Trade Commission, entitled In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, Inv. NO. 337-TA-850 (Nov. 19, 2012), one issue was the scope of eDiscovery. This is an administrative proceeding and the parties are not bound by the federal rules of evidence. The International Trade Commission (ITC)
Read More