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
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
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
Slack, the collaborative workspace designed to streamline real-time communications between business teams, poses some challenges in the eDiscovery context (see our prior blog post). This blog post discusses a recent decision that explores the proper scope of discovery regarding Slack messages – specifically, whether each individual Slack message should be treated as a discrete