#motion to compel

[xmrchat]

Tara Peterson (@beyondbettygirl13) on Threads

And here's the list https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253239-1324-epstein-documents-943-pages/

[cceparalegal]

Be A Discovery Ace.

Be A Discovery Ace.

6 Keys to Acing Discovery, by Katherine A. Hopkins, ABA Journal

https://bit.ly/2F5iAod

Best advice in this well-written  post? Know the case law in your Motion to Compel, know the court rules and follow them to the letter, and make it easy for the judge. -CCE

View On WordPress

[cceparalegal]

2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

If You’re Going to Submit a 2,941 Page Privilege Log, You’d Better Be Able to Demonstrate Privilege: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwmrx27

The last post by Mr. Gilliland is an excellent illustration of the rule for privilege logs. This example? Well, you be the judge. -CCE

In United States v. Louisiana, 11-470-JWD-RLB. (M.D. La. July 31, 2015),…

View On WordPress

[ilsediscovery-blog]

Defendant’s Destruction of a Computer Determined to be Bad Faith Spoliation

In the beginning of a copyright infringement case filed in May 2013, the court entered a scheduling order on February 20, 2014, whereby Defendant was to preserve all electronically stored information (ESI) including metadata. Defendant was also to ascertain what devices he had and what he has done to preserve ESI in Grady v. Brodersen, Civil Action No. 13-cv-00752-REB-NYW (D.Colo. March 23, 2015).

Plaintiff alleged that for seven months after this order was entered, Defendant failed to disclose or communicate regarding what devices he had or what steps had been taken to preserve ESI. On February 27, 2014, Defendant admitted computer equipment was relevant and identified himself as the custodian. He claimed to be searching his computers for relevant ESI. In August 2014, Defendant amended his initial disclosure and noted his computer owned during the relevant time period died and was discarded.

In response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the court ordered on September 16, 2014 Defendant to produce his new computer hard drive for inspection and copying. In his deposition a month later, Defendant testified his computer was inoperable but he did nothing in attempt to have it repaired. Plaintiff moved for sanctions, alleging the following:

1.      The computer that was discarded and lost the ESI was a significant prejudice to Plaintiff. The computer was an important source of evidence regarding the copywritten works.

2.      Deferent was not truthful on his initial 26(a)(1) disclosures.

3.      Defendant destroyed the computer after litigation arose and there was a duty to preserve all relevant evidence.

4.      The court was not required to issue a warning of dismissal where the spoliation violation is severe to dismiss the case as sanction.

The court agreed with allegations 1-3 and found Defendant engaged in bad faith spoliation by discarding the computer. However, the court felt dismissal was too severe a sanction with the 10th Circuit’s direction in mind to consider the efficacy of lesser sanctions. The court ordered an adverse inference instruction and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs.

ILS – Plaintiff Electronic Discovery Experts

[cceparalegal]

Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties' E-Discovery Tactics.

Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.

E=Frustrated Court Crafts ‘New and Simpler Approach to Discovery,’ Identifies Search Terms to be Utilized by Plaintiff, posted in Case Summaries by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/kerbox6

Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2014 WL 6908867 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014)

In this breach of contract case, the court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel and, in light of Plaintiff’s…

View On WordPress

[cceparalegal]

To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was "Fair."

To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was “Fair.”

Considering Motion to Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Responses Have Been “Fair,” by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/kkgomaa

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5321095 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)

In this patent infringement case, Defendant objected to ‘producing custodial email from archival systems when [the Plaintiff] is not able to do the same in…

View On WordPress

[rynnicol]

Dear Dumbass,

Sending me a signed agreed order 3 hours after the motion happened-- you know the motion that you didn't respond to?  Yeah, I won that motion so you can go suck on your little agreed order.  Enjoy paying those sanctions 'cause we both know you're not going to comply with the judge's orders.