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
Data collection[1] can be technically rigorous and complex because it involves extracting potentially relevant electronically stored information (ESI) from native sources for processing, review, and production. Recognizing this complexity, an effective collection strategy likely involves both legal and IT professionals.
Once your team is established, you should decide what, among the materials preserved, should
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
The Court’s statutory and inherent authority to impose sanctions for eDiscovery spoliation remains important for the administration of justice and judicial case management. However, sanctions a court imposes to remediate discovery misconduct when a party fails to preserve potentially relevant information and that failure is shown to have been an intentional act to deprive the
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
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,