Skip to main content

Publications

Jul 2019
30
July 30, 2019

eDiscovery Case Brief Analysis 2018-2019

Henson v Turn, Inc
2018 WL 5281629 (ND Cal Oct 22, 2018) 
In weighing privacy concerns in its proportionality analysis, the court found no authority for ordering plaintiffs to produce a complete forensic image of their mobile devices or for granting defendant the right to directly inspect them and the defendant otherwise provided no justification to sustain its request.

Robinson v MGM Grand Detroit, LLC
2019 WL 244787 (ED Mich Jan 17, 2019) 
The court overruled plaintiff’s objections to magistrate judge’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel production of  Facebook, Google Photo and Google location data for the limited time period that plaintiff alleged he needed FMLA leave and was unable to work.

FCA US LLC v Bullock
2019 WL 258169 (ED Mich Jan 18, 2019) 
In this trade secrets case, request to mirror image defendant’s hard drive denied as not proportional to the needs of the case, but defendant ordered to produce deleted files from hard drive and at plaintiff’s expense should an expert be required to obtain the deleted files. 

Postle v SilkRoad Tech, Inc
2019 WL 692944 (D NH Feb 19, 2019) 
The moving party under Federal Rule 37(e) must prove requisite elements by “clear and convincing” evidence.

Gaina v Northridge Hosp Med Center
2019 WL 1751825 (CD Cal Feb 25, 2019) 
The court will not consider the proportionality of discovery requests underlying a motion for spoliation sanctions filed under Federal Rule 37(e).

Seattle Pacific Industries, Inc v S3 Holding LLC
2019 WL 1013426 (WD Wash Mar 4, 2019) 
The evidentiary rules concerning impeachment of witnesses do not expand the scope of discovery, which would become virtually limitless if discovery requests could be “justified by nothing more than the hope of catching a witness in a lie.” 

Prado v Mazeika
2019 WL 1039896 (SD Ohio Mar 5, 2019) 
The court granted motion to quash subpoena where extent of redactions necessary to alleviate confidentiality concerns rendered the discovery disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Udeen v Subaru of America, Inc 
2019 WL 1173022 (D NJ Mar 12, 2019) 
The court denied defendant’s request to stay discovery in nationwide products liability class action, but limited discovery to “core issues,” and required parties to “meet and confer” to narrow plaintiffs’ discovery requests and to discuss any necessary third party discovery.

Williams v United States
2019 WL 1330714 (DDC Mar 25, 2019) 
The court denied request for “location data” from deceased teenager’s phone where information would be used to determine how teenager became infected with HIV; finding that the probative value of the data did not outweigh “the burdens that might be imposed on unrelated third parties, and ultimately the potential for harm is not proportional to the need for such evidence in this case.”

Resnik v Coulson 
2019 WL 1434051 (EDNY Mar 30, 2019) 
The sanctions under Federal Rule 37(e)(2) awarded based on collateral estoppel effect given to intentional spoliation finding in state court divorce action.

Dean v Akal Security, Inc 
2019 WL 1549017 (WD La Apr 8, 2019)
Counsel sanctioned for failing to modify overly broad Federal Rule 45 subpoena and for failing to “meet and confer” under court’s local rules prior to filing motion to enforce non-party’s compliance with subpoena.

Michael Kors, LLC v Ye 
2019 WL 1517552 (SDNY Apr 8, 2019)
In a case with relatively low damages, effective advocacy must be balanced against the need to keep litigation costs down, by narrowing discovery requests, seeking compromise over objections, and meeting and conferring in good faith to resolve disputes and avoid court intervention – “all critical obligations under Rules 1 and 26.”

Leidel v Coinbase, Inc
2019 WL 1585137 (SD Fla Apr 12, 2019) 
Objection to document request overruled where response would require defendant to produce reports by querying an existing dynamic database and not create “new documents.”

Drivetime Car Sales Co, LLC v Pettigrew
2019 WL 1746730 (SD Ohio Apr 18, 2019) 
The defendant may request a protective jury instruction to insulate himself from effect of adverse inference instruction awarded against co-defendant for spoliation of ESI.

Enoch v Hamilton Cty Sheriff’s Office
2019 WL 1755966 (SD Ohio Apr 19, 2019)
A motion for spoliation sanctions is considered untimely when filed after the close of discovery and only in response to motion for partial summary judgment. 

Cahoo v SAS Institute Inc
2019 WL 1771803 (ED Mich Apr 23, 2019)
Federal unemployment compensation program regulations do not override mandatory shifting of “significant expense” of compliance with subpoena under Federal Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). 

Black v Wrigley
2019 WL 1877070 (SD Cal Apr 26, 2019) 
The plaintiff and counsel ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued for service of improper subpoena under Federal Rule 45, where subpoena was issued on the date of the discovery deadline, required production of documents more than 100 miles from non-party’s residence, was overly broad and was not withdrawn upon non-party’s request. 

Cole v FBI
2019 WL 1904883 (D Mont Apr 29, 2019) 
Applying the current “relevant and proportional” discovery standard, rather than the obsolete and improper “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standard argued by plaintiffs, resulted in the court denying the plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to their temporally unlimited interrogatories and document requests seeking “any and all” documents over broad topics and wide time frames.

McLean v USCCB
2019 WL 2004617 (D Minn May 7, 2019) 
A motion for jurisdictional discovery was denied as disproportionate to the needs of the case where plaintiffs “were unable to craft discovery requests that are specific, focused, and tailored to their assertions concerning general and specific personal jurisdiction” and the defendant was amenable to suit elsewhere. 

4DD Holdings, LLC v US
2019 WL 2064535 (Fed Cl May 10, 2019) 
Instructing contractors to delete relevant ESI with knowledge of foreseeable litigation equates to “intent to deprive” necessary to justify award of adverse inference jury instruction under Federal Rule 37(e)(2). 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset