Blankenship v. Fox News Network, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00236, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. June 14, 2021) serves as a lesson in how not to conduct discovery. In this matter, there were multiple defendants: one of which demanded Plaintiff produce ESI in TIFF image format with load files; and others of whom demanded the
“Forensic examinations of computers and cell phones are generally considered a drastic discovery measure” because they are intrusive in nature. Stewart v First Transit Inc., Civ No. 18-3768, (ED PA Sept 3, 2019). Indeed, the inspecting or testing of electronic information systems implicate issues of confidentiality and privacy (see, e.g., Rule 34(a) Advisory Committee
As the below DOMO infographic suggests, people are reliant upon the worldwide web at activity levels that are difficult to comprehend. Consider, for example, that people send 16 million text messages every minute! Or that 2.4 million snaps are sent every 60 seconds! Or, that the internet reaches approximately 5 billion people (i.e., 63%
A case out of the District of Minnesota recently addressed whether a party can be compelled to produce text messages from an employee’s personal mobile device when that party has a bring your own device (BYOD) policy in place. See In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 2022 WL 972401 (D. Minn. 2022).
This class
In Abbott Laboratories, et al., v Adelphia Supply USA (EDNY May 2, 2019), Plaintiffs filed a motion for case-ending sanctions against defendants H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman (for purposes of this blog, “Defendants”). The parties submitted briefing and Magistrate Judge Bloom held oral argument. On May 2, 2019, Judge Bloom
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