To discover, or to disclose? That is the question. While English playwright William Shakespeare would no doubt be turning in his grave at the loose use of one of his most famous lines, the question serves as a reminder that the discovery process in the United States and the disclosure procedure in England and Wales
Pending in the Southern District of Ohio, Safelite Group, Inc., v Nathaniel Lockridge et. al. reminds counsel of the importance of being active in the preservation process and reminds litigants of the importance of preserving text messages.
Background
Nationwide auto glass repair and replacement provider Safelite Group, Inc. employed defendant Nathaniel Lockridge, and in 2020
Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd. involves allegations that defendant Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. d/b/a MSA Security, Inc. (MSA) violated a federal whistleblower law. The parties have engaged in lengthy and contentious discovery and most recently argued before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia about plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge granting MSA’s
Discovery in the United States is uniquely broad, and under the Federal Rules of Evidence and various state laws, parties have a legal obligation to preserve documents and data if they know or should have known that they represent relevant evidence in pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.[1] Companies headquartered outside of the United States
On May 17, 2024, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules released its report on artificial intelligence, which discusses the potential need for modifications to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The committee issued this report after its April 2024 meeting, which featured testimony from several AI experts. While the committee did not identify
In trademark infringement case ZAGG Inc, v. Ichilevici et al., ZAGG, a manufacturer of screen protectors and other products deposed a corporate designee of the defendant the day before discovery closed. As a result of that deposition, ZAGG sought both to compel the production of additional documents and an extension of the discovery deadline
One court recently held that the failure to produce a privilege log for responsive documents withheld from discovery resulted in a waiver of privilege and warranted sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2). Coker, et al. v. Goldberg & Associates P.C., et al., 2024 WL 263121 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). This case is an important reminder to practitioners.
In Adamson v Pierce County et al., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled on defendants’ motion for protective order (Motion), where defendants requested the court limit the scope of various 30(b)(6) deposition topics, addressed the appropriateness of “discovery on discovery” as a deposition topic, and reminded attorneys that the
eDiscovery document review can be time-consuming and expensive for companies. Depending on the results of the review, it also can be helpful for internal investigation or litigation purposes. To minimize the burden and maximize the benefit of document review, a good document review protocol is critical. A document review protocol is a set of instructions
In Estate of Daher, by and through Daher v. LSH Co. (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2023), the plaintiff, seeking to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, served subpoenas on a nonparty (Coventry) to obtain documents related to a finance program administered by Coventry under which plaintiff alleged the policy was generated. Coventry objected