www.cloudninediscovery.com

Subscription Center

Sign up to receive eDiscovery Daily's articles via email or add the RSS feed to your newsreader of choice.

  • RSS Feed

Library

Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog

About the Bloggers

Brad Jenkins

Brad Jenkins, President and CEO of CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years of experience leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Doug Austin

Doug Austin, Professional Services Manager for CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years experience providing legal technology consulting and technical project management services to numerous commercial and government clients. Doug has also authored several articles on eDiscovery best practices.

Jane Gennarelli

Jane Gennarelli is a principal of Magellan’s Law Corporation and has been assisting litigators in effectively handling discovery materials for over 30 years. She authored the company’s Best Practices in a Box™ content product and assists firms in applying technology to document handling tasks. She is a known expert and often does webinars and presentations for litigation support professionals around the country. Jane can be reached by email at jane@litigationbestpractices.com.

Case Law

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach - eDiscovery Case Law

November 24, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants' motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

Read more

Court Allows Costs for TIFF Conversion and OCR, Likens it to "Making Copies" - eDiscovery Case Law

November 21, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose upheld the Clerk of Courts issuance of Taxation of Costs for $60,890.97 in favor of the defendants and against the named the plaintiffs, including costs for “scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI”.

Read more

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs - eDiscovery Case Law

November 19, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems., California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Read more

The Watergate 18 Minute Gap in Audio Recordings Has Nothing on This Case - eDiscovery Case Law

November 17, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, New York Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant, awarding an adverse inference jury instruction for several weeks of spoliated audio recordings and also awarding “reasonable attorney's fees and costs” associated with the motion as well as retaking several depositions.

Read more

Plaintiff Can't "Pick" and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures - eDiscovery Case Law

November 12, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

Read more

Judgment of $34 Million against Insurer Dodging Malpractice Claim is a "Dish" Served Cold - eDiscovery Case Law

November 07, 2014

By Doug Austin

In my hometown of Houston, attempting to deny coverage to a client successfully sued for discovery-related negligence cost OneBeacon Insurance Company a $34 million judgment by a federal jury.

Read more

Plaintiff Slips, But Defendant Takes the Fall - eDiscovery Case Law

November 03, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Riley v. Marriott Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson agreed with the plaintiffs that spoliation of data had occurred when the defendant failed to preserve video surveillance and “sweep logs” after one of the plaintiffs slipped and fell in the defendant’s hotel garage and that the defendant was at least grossly negligent for not preserving the information. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs request for summary judgment, granting an adverse inference instruction instead.

Read more

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery” - eDiscovery Case Law

October 29, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

Read more

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung - eDiscovery Case Law

October 27, 2014

By Doug Austin

Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Read more

Court Slashes Vendor Bill Filled with Double Billing and Data Recovery Charges - eDiscovery Case Law

October 22, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Lanterman and Computer Forensic Services v. Afremov, Minnesota District Judge Philip D. Bush slashed over $700,000 from the plaintiff’s disputed invoices for eDiscovery work performed on behalf of the defendant, leaving an award of just over $103,000 for services rendered.

Read more

October Case Law Pop Quiz Answers! - eDiscovery Case Law

October 21, 2014

By Doug Austin

Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the eDiscovery case law that we’ve covered since the beginning of August. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let's see how you did. Here are the answers.

Read more

October Case Law Pop Quiz! - eDiscovery Case Law

October 20, 2014

By Doug Austin

We enjoyed the eDiscovery case law pop quiz that we did back in August so much, that we decided it’s time for another one – this one is customized to the case law that we’ve covered since the beginning of August. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

Read more

Battle Continues between Attorneys and Client over Attorneys’ Failure to Review Documents - eDiscovery Case Law

October 17, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Price Waicukauski & Riley v. Murray, Indiana District Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment for failure to pay attorney’s fees of over $125,000, and refused to issue summary judgment for either party related to a legal malpractice claim for the plaintiff’s admitted failure to review documents produced in the defendants’ case against another party because of a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the documents produced.

Read more

Failure to Preserve Data on Various Devices Causes Special Master to Recommend Default Judgment - eDiscovery Case Law

October 15, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Special Master Daniel B. Garrie, calling the defendant’s widespread failure to preserve data a “mockery of the orderly administration of justice”, recommended that the court enter an order of default judgment, along with further sanctions, in favor of the plaintiffs.

Read more

Court Rules that Joint Stipulation Supports Plaintiff’s Production of Images Instead of Native Files - eDiscovery Case Law

October 13, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology LLC, California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in native form because the production format had been agreed upon under the parties’ ESI protocol under the Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by the parties that supported production in “paper, PDF, or TIFF format”.

Read more

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an "Unproven Technology" - eDiscovery Case Law

October 06, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent's discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Read more

Court Grants Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Due to Data that is “Less Accessible” - eDiscovery Case Law

September 17, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Mazzei v. Money Store, New York Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant, ordering the defendant to bear the cost of obtaining all the relevant data in question from a third party as well as paying for plaintiff attorney fees in filing the motion.

Read more

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool” - eDiscovery Case Law

September 15, 2014

By Doug Austin

In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Read more

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena - eDiscovery Case Law

September 10, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Read more

Though it was "Switching Horses in Midstream", Court Approves Plaintiff's Predictive Coding Plan - eDiscovery Case Law

September 08, 2014

By Doug Austin

In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Read more

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

September 03, 2014

By Doug Austin

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, after doing so each business day, I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily! Check out what we've covered over 1,000 posts!

Read more

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products - eDiscovery Case Law

September 02, 2014

By Doug Austin

Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Read more

http://www.cloudninediscovery.com/ondemand/free-software-trial.aspx