-
In Deciding Spoliation Sanctions Motion, Court Determines if Police Defendants Intended to Destroy Cell Phones
In Dotson, et al. v. Edmonson, et al., No. 16-15371, (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018), the issue considered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was whether sanctions were warranted based upon claims of spoliation re phone records. Lyle Dotson, et al., (“Plaintiff”) moved for
-
Court Rejects Defendant’s Claim He Does Not Have Control of Responsive Documents: Court Says Custody and Control Compels Production
In Rabang, et al., v. Kelly et al., No. 2:17-cv-00088-JCC, U.S. Dist. Ct. (W.D. Wash. 2017) the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington compelled the Defendants to produce multiple documents after, as the Court described, Defendants stonewalled Plaintiffs in their requests. Defendant has refused to produce
-
Court Demands Specificity in Motions to Compel Discovery
In Doctors Pathology Servs., PA v. Gerges, C.A. No 11457-CB (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2017), the court demanded that parties be specific as to which discovery requests were problematic, including providing specific numbers of discovery requests listed in the Motion to Compel. Here, Plaintiff had sued a former employee and
-
Court Disagrees with Defendants’ Claim that Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to ESI Discovery Prior to Conditional Certification
In Rabin v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, No. 16-cv-02276-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017), Plaintiffs sought document production to begin on a rolling basis from August to October at the same time as the TAR model was iteratively refined and checked for accuracy. This timeline, Plaintiffs argued, would allow them to use
-
Defendant Asks Court to Compel Plaintiff to Return Privileged Documents Inadvertently Produced During Discovery. Court Declines, Agreeing with Plaintiff that Inadvertent Production Twice Waived Privilege
In Irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Commc’ns, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-219 (S.D. Ohio 2017), a discovery dispute arose out of state court lawsuit filed in January 2016, involving allegations of breach of contract, balance due on an account, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, fraud, and violation of a license agreement. The ensuing discovery