Tag: relevant documents

  • Compelling the Deposition of a Foreign Managing Agent

    4 Feb 2013

    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.

  • Is this Finally the End of the Rambus v. Micron Evidence Spoliation Case?

    21 Jan 2013

    The patent dispute case Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR (D. Del.) has been ongoing for a few years now with a new order issued January 2, 2013. As a reminder, there were several instances of alleged litigation misconduct, including a Rambus witness recanting testimony regarding the document retention policy,

  • Court Finds Culpable Mind in Defense Spoliation of Plaintiff eDiscovery

    11 Jan 2013

    So which side comes out on top for Day v. LSI Corporation, 2012 WL 6674434 (Dec. 20, 2012 D. Ariz.)? Monday’s blog detailed the specific categories of electronic data discovery that plaintiff alleges to be missing from the defense production, and on Wednesday, we reviewed the defenses to the allegations

  • Reviewing the Top 5 Plaintiff eDiscovery Cases of 2012

    21 Dec 2012

    Our blog discusses the latest cases (good and bad)  that affect plaintiff trial attorneys every week, and the following is our Top 5 Plaintiff eDiscovery cases of 2012: 5. Race Tires America, Inc. LLC v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. (Race Tires II), No. 11-2316, 2012 WL 887593 (3d Cir. Mar.

  • Judge Scheindlin Discusses ESI Production at 2012 eDiscovery Institute

    19 Dec 2012

    U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin recently spoke at the 2012 Georgetown eDiscovery Institute, where the topic was “First Do No Harm: Preserving and Admitting Foreign ESI.”  Judge Scheindlin’s penning of five Zubulake electronic discovery opinions in one of the first major plaintiff eDiscovery cases in the country makes

  • eDiscovery Lesson: Surprise! Dismissal Proper After Taking Sledgehammer to Computer

    12 Dec 2012

    In Taylor v. Mitre Corporation, 2012 WL 5473573 (E.D.Va. Nov. 8, 2012), an employee alleged employment discrimination. After making the requisite EEOC claim, the employee took a “sledgehammer” to his work computer containing email threads and discarded the scraps in a landfill. He subsequently received the “right-to-sue” letter from the

  • DOJ’s Untimely Litigation Hold Results in Inadequate ESI Production and Sanctions

    10 Dec 2012

    In the recent case of U.S. ex rel. Baker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 2012 WL 5387069 (D.N.M. Oct 3, 2012), the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged the defendant engaged in Medicaid fraud.  In a motion for sanctions, defendant alleged that the DOJ’s litigation holds were untimely and

  • Goodyear Takes Heat After Fraudulent Plaintiff eDiscovery Evasions

    5 Dec 2012

    Discovery should not and cannot be a game of hide and seek. That is the take away statement in Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and RubberCo., No. CV-05-02046-RHX-ROS (D.Ct.Ariz. Nov. 8, 2012). Tire safety tests were at issue in discovery in the underlying product liability case. Plaintiffs sought relevant documents regarding

  • Sweeping Plaintiff eDiscovery Ordered for Social Media Accounts in Class Action Lawsuit

    26 Nov 2012

    Courts have struggled to strike the proper balance between discoverable information and the invasions of privacy rights of plaintiffs with social media accounts.  While the general rule of thumb is for defendants to make a threshold showing of relevancy before private information is ordered produced, a federal court in Colorado recently

  • NCAA Seeks to Deny Class Action Certification…Based on eDiscovery?

    29 Oct 2012

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y77cUTWKvEU Sixteen college athletes sued the NCAA and two other defendants in 2009 in the U.S. district court for the District of Northern California, alleging the defendants violated anti-trust laws by conspiring to fix players’ compensation at zero while at the same time using and profiting from the players’ names, images