Court in New York denied motion to compel ESI from personal phones, ruling plaintiffs lacked evidence that board members used personal devices for business or that the town had control over such ESI.
Continue Reading Compelling Parties to Collect ESI from Personal Devices
In Dale v. T-Mobile US, Inc. – a putative antitrust class action litigation – Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole resolved whether and to what extent confidentiality agreements between parties apply to productions nonparty recipients of subpoenas made.
Continue Reading Confidentiality Agreements Applied to Non-Party Recipients
In Wilbert v. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Silvermist Recovery Center, et al., the plaintiff filed suit alleging pregnancy-based discrimination and harassment, culminating in her termination. According to the court, the parties never agreed on how to handle the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in connection with the litigation.
Continue Reading Compliance with Meet and Confer Obligations Under the Federal Rules
Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the officers’ favor. Hoffer appealed the judgment, arguing the district court erred in denying his request
In Chepilko v. Henry, the Southern District of New York denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that a public records request and a civilian complaint did not trigger defendants’ duty to preserve electronic evidence. In the ruling, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron analyzed when one’s obligation to preserve camera footage “in anticipation of
In We The Protesters, Inc., et al., v. Sinyangwe et. Al, the Southern District of New York was recently called upon to resolve a discovery dispute that, according to the Magistrate Judge, “underscore[d] the importance of counsel fashioning clear and comprehensive agreements when navigating the perils and pitfalls of electronic discovery.” More specifically, the court
Prior posts have discussed sanctions generally, as well as decisions analyzing the particulars of the operative rules (see November 2024 and December 2023 posts), but today’s blog discusses considerations for when, during a litigation, is the proper time to file a spoliation motion.
District Judge Iain Johnston’s[1] decision in Groves, Inc. v R.C. Bremer
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
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