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
In Estate of Daher, by and through Daher v. LSH Co. (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2023), the plaintiff, seeking to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, served subpoenas on a nonparty (Coventry) to obtain documents related to a finance program administered by Coventry under which plaintiff alleged the policy was generated. Coventry objected
Facts
In Miramontes v. Peraton Inc., an employment discrimination case, plaintiff moved for sanctions against defendant for its failure to preserve text messages and a skills assessment related to plaintiff’s performance. Plaintiff – a senior supply chain business partner manager – was a 27-year employee of Prospecta when the company was acquired by defendant
In litigation, allowing a client to handle the process of collecting its electronic discovery without adequate attorney oversight of quality control validation can lead to serious trouble for all concerned. Courts throughout the country have repeatedly held that attorneys have professional and ethical duties to ensure the adequacy of their clients’ actions in identifying, preserving
Courts have recognized the perils of discovery on discovery and have sought to regulate the practice to prevent the “danger[s] of extending the already costly and time-consuming discovery process ad infinitum.” Am. W. Bank Members, L.C., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218480, at *5. As a baseline, many courts have held that failure to show
“We can’t go on together with suspicious minds”—that is the premise of “discovery on discovery.” With suspicion on the mind, a party may believe that its opponent has wrongfully withheld information, documents, or other materials in discovery, and therefore may seek to have discovery on discovery. Discovery on discovery, also referred to as
In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litig., MDL 2862 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2023), is a multidistrict litigation concerning an alleged conspiracy to reduce supply and increase prices for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI), precursor ingredients for the manufacture of polyurethane foam and thermoplastic polyurethanes.
During discovery, the parties filed various motions with