This is the second post in a three-part series dedicated to discussing considerations at each stage of the eDiscovery process. Today’s post focuses on identifying and interviewing custodians.
Because it is critical to assess the nature and extent of a client’s electronically stored information (ESI), attorneys must identify ESI custodians[1] and find out what
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
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
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
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 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,