plaintiff electronic discovery

admin
December 13, 2013

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 excellent example of Fed. R.

admin
December 11, 2013

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, so the court now recognizes

admin
December 9, 2013

When Electronic Documents are Fewer than Expected, Defendants must Explain Why or Produce More

In American Home Assurance et al. v. Greater Omaha Packing Company Inc., No. 8:11CV270 (Dist. Court, D. Nebraska Sept. 11, 2013), plaintiffs Cargill and American Home Assurance alleged defendant GOPAC supplied E. coli-tainted beef that sickened dozens of people in 2007. Mired in discovery for more than a year, plaintiff Cargill seeks a motion to

admin
December 5, 2013

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 to provide defense costs under

admin
December 3, 2013

Plaintiffs Should Specify Exact Formats for Electronic Document Production

In Rick James, et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ) (Dist. Court, N.D. California Nov. 8, 2013), plaintiff, the estate of the late singer Rick James, alleges defendant UMG Recordings, Inc. underpays licensing royalties for digital downloads of recordings. The plaintiff eDiscovery requests sought Excel-versions of electronic documents from defendant calculating royalties, but

admin
December 1, 2013

Defendant Must Provide Electronic Documents in Reasonable Form

In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264 (Dist. Court, D. Nebraska Nov. 8, 2013), plaintiff Home Away alleged defendant Florance violated a non-compete agreement, took trade secrets and used licensed marks of Home Away without permission. Florance operated a franchise under Home Away for fifteen years. During depositions, Florance testified to discarding evidence that

admin
November 27, 2013

PDF Files Without Metadata: Acceptable Defense Production?

If a defense production is tendered as electronic data in PDF form, non-searchable and without metadata, does it meet the discovery requirements of Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 34? Or do plaintiffs have grounds to object and request an order of court compelling the production in native file format? This question is but one issue at hand in

admin
November 22, 2013

Plaintiff eDiscovery Costs and Attorney Fees Taxable as a “Prevailing Party” After Settlement

In a housing discrimination case, Fair Housing Center of Southeast Michigan v. Hunt, Case No. 1:09-cv-593 (W.D. Mich. October 21, 2013), plaintiffs and defendants were able to come to a settlement agreement after three years in litigation. The settlement provided for defendants to pay plaintiffs $47,500 for their damage claims, but left open the question

admin
November 20, 2013

Plaintiff Attorney Fees Imposed for Defense Production’s “Severe Shortcomings”

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