Photo of Kathryn C. Cole

Kathryn C. Cole represents large and small businesses, financial institutions, and individuals in virtually all aspects of federal and state court commercial litigation, arbitration and mediation, and before federal agencies and regulatory bodies. In addition to advising on electronic data and cyber-related issues, Katy has considerable experience in all areas of complex litigation including contract claims, product liability claims, tort claims, consumer class-action claims and securities class-action claims.

The Court’s statutory and inherent authority to impose sanctions for eDiscovery spoliation remains important for the administration of justice and judicial case management. However, sanctions a court imposes to remediate discovery misconduct when a party fails to preserve potentially relevant information and that failure is shown to have been an intentional act to deprive the

Discovery protocols governing the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in litigation (“ESI Protocols”) can be invaluable.  Rather than execute a formulaic ESI Protocol, counsel should familiarize themselves with their clients’ ESI practices, anticipate issues that may arise during discovery, and agree, in their protocol, on how to address those issues.  By charting a course

In Jim Hawk Truck-Trailers of Sioux Falls, Inc. v Crossroads Trailer Sales & Service, Inc., et al., Judge Schreier provides a useful roadmap for navigating electronically stored information (ESI) when deciding Defendant’s motion to compel, among other things, the production of documents responsive to seven ESI search terms.

Background

In March 2020, Jim Hawk

A 2022 case out of the Southern District of New York discussed the affirmative discovery obligations imposed upon parties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34 when conducting electronically stored information (ESI) searches and determining the identities of custodians and locations of relevant documents or information. Specifically, the court observed that any agreement

Recent legal and eDiscovery news has focused on “Slack.” And yet, despite the increasing publicity Slack has received, some remain unfamiliar with Slack – the leading channel-based messaging platform. Therefore, today’s post is meant to introduce readers to Slack and offer insights into preserving Slack data.

What is Slack?

At its most basic level, Slack

In an action alleging breach of a commercial equipment lease agreement (Interpool, Inc., v JJS Transportation & Distribution Co., Inc.), the District Court for the Eastern District of New York was called upon to address Defendant’s ongoing discovery failures. Specifically, Defendant – for more than three months – failed to produce documents responsive

In November 2022, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association (ABA) published a formal opinion advising attorneys to refrain generally from including clients on emails and texts sent to opposing counsel. At the same time, the Committee noted that responding to group communications, that included opposing counsel and his/her

Modern day litigation involves an ever-increasing volume of data. In turn, the ubiquitous nature of data has caused significant financial strains on legal teams. Because of the financial concerns attendant to eDiscovery, it is imperative that today’s legal teams are conversant in defensible strategies to control legal costs without compromising the ability to understand their

In an earlier post, we discussed how District Court Judge Iain Johnston noted that “at times, ESI discovery can be complex,” but the “same basic discovery principles that worked for the Flintstones still work for the Jetsons.” Indeed, ESI discovery, just like its paper predecessor, involves five fundamental steps: (1) identification, (2) preservation, (3)

For anyone with a few hours to spare, I highly recommend reading the various decisions authored by District Court Judge Iain Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois relating to discovery failures in the DR Distributors case.  DR Distributors, LLC v. Century 21 Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp.3d 839 (ND Ill., 2021).  Indeed, the case