Our next few blog posts will discuss cases addressing the imposition of sanctions. Our first case – Klipsch Group Inc. v ePRO E-Commerce (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) – decided by the Second Circuit, remains good law and is important insofar as the circuit court ruled that eDiscovery sanctions are not limited by the amount
In In re Actos Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA), — F.R.D. —-, 2022 WL 949798 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2022), Defendant produced responsive emails using “threading,” to reduce volume. Plaintiff, however, had never agreed to the use of threading, and the parties’ electronically stored information (ESI) protocol was silent about utilizing threading. And so,
In one of the more dramatic courtroom scenes read about, other than those that play out in novels, Alex Jones[1] was confronted on the stand with a cache of his own texts and emails. But where did these messages come from when Jones repeatedly claimed during discovery that he searched for “Sandy Hook” in
A recent decision from the Western District of Arkansas reminds litigators that: (1) claims of undue burden must be supported by more than just conclusory allegations of a purported burden; (2) parties should interpose all applicable objections in their formal written responses and objections or risk waiver; and (3) courts take seriously preservation obligations whether
When litigants think of proportional eDiscovery, often one’s focus is upon the financial burden of the requested discovery (broad search terms, restoring backup tapes, etc.) relative to the amount in controversy and/or the likelihood of unearthing unique, relevant content. In a recent decision, we were reminded that determining what is proportional is not merely a