Late last year, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes to Rules 26 and 16 focus on streamlining discovery, particularly regarding privilege and work product, by mandating that parties address these issues at the initial Rule 26(f) conference.
In Sound Around, Inc. v. Moises Friedman, Magistrate Judge Katharine A. Parker addressed Rule 34 standards relating to the production of structured data from dynamic databases. Plaintiff filed a robust complaint alleging the defendants misappropriated confidential trade secret information, diverted corporate opportunities, used plaintiff’s trademarks and overall commercial image and appearance (i.e., trade dress) to market
Hubbard v. Crow is a recent federal case highlighting complex issues at the intersection of technology and the law, particularly regarding the preservation and production of electronic evidence under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case centered on a dispute over plaintiffs’ alleged failure to produce an unedited podcast recording, which
Court in New York denied motion to compel ESI from personal phones, ruling plaintiffs lacked evidence that board members used personal devices for business or that the town had control over such ESI.
Continue Reading Compelling Parties to Collect ESI from Personal Devices
In Wilbert v. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Silvermist Recovery Center, et al., the plaintiff filed suit alleging pregnancy-based discrimination and harassment, culminating in her termination. According to the court, the parties never agreed on how to handle the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in connection with the litigation.
Continue Reading Compliance with Meet and Confer Obligations Under the Federal Rules
Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the officers’ favor. Hoffer appealed the judgment, arguing the district court erred in denying his request
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
Discovery in the United States is uniquely broad, and under the Federal Rules of Evidence and various state laws, parties have a legal obligation to preserve documents and data if they know or should have known that they represent relevant evidence in pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.[1] Companies headquartered outside of the United States
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
eDiscovery document review can be time-consuming and expensive for companies. Depending on the results of the review, it also can be helpful for internal investigation or litigation purposes. To minimize the burden and maximize the benefit of document review, a good document review protocol is critical. A document review protocol is a set of instructions