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.

Production

Court Rules Defendant Doesn’t Have Controls of PCs of Former Members, Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel – eDiscovery Case Law

November 11, 2013

By Doug Austin

To require a party to produce evidence in discovery, the party must have “possession, custody, or control” of the evidence. In Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint District No. 7, the defendant did not have control over the personal computers of its former members, employees, or staff; it did not have the legal right to obtain information from them “on demand.” Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to compel and refused to order the forensic examination of the personal computers of current or former members, employees, or staff.

Read more

What is “Reduping?” – eDiscovery Explained

October 28, 2013

By Doug Austin

As emails are sent out to multiple custodians, deduplication (or “deduping”) has become a common practice to eliminate multiple copies of the same email or file from the review collection, saving considerable review costs and ensuring consistency by not having different reviewers apply different responsiveness or privilege determinations to the same file. Everyone who works in electronic discovery knows what “deduping” is. But how many of you know what “reduping” is?

Read more

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Production, Allows PDFs Instead – eDiscovery Case Law

October 25, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Westdale Recap Props. v. Np/I&G Wakefield Commons, North Carolina Magistrate Judge James E. Gates upheld the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to conduct supplemental searches and production, but denied the plaintiff’s motion with regard to requiring the defendant to produce ESI in native format, instead finding that “production in the form of searchable PDF's is sufficient”.

Read more

For Successful Discovery, Think Backwards – eDiscovery Best Practices

October 08, 2013

By Doug Austin

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) has become the standard model for the workflow of the process for handling electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery. But, to succeed in discovery, regardless whether you’re the producing party or the receiving party, it might be helpful to think about the EDRM model backwards.

Read more

Despite Missing and Scrambled Hard Drives, Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions – eDiscovery Case Law

October 03, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Anderson v. Sullivan, a Pennsylvania court found “that no sanctions are warranted” despite the disappearance of one hard drive, "scrambling" of another hard drive and failure to produce several e-mails because the evidence was not relevant to the underlying claims and because there was no showing the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Read more

Court Rejects Defendant’s “Ultra-Broad” Request, Denies Motion to Compel Production – eDiscovery Case Law

September 27, 2013

By Doug Austin

In NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enters., Inc., Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. denied a motion to compel a plaintiff and its principal (a third-party defendant) to produce their passwords and usernames for all websites with potentially relevant information and to compel a forensic examination of its computers.

Read more

eDiscovery Daily is Three Years Old!

September 20, 2013

By Doug Austin

We’ve always been free, now we are three! It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school. Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test! Here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.

Read more

If Production is Small, Does that Mean ESI is Being Withheld? – eDiscovery Case Law

September 19, 2013

By Doug Austin

In American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Nebraska District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled (among other things) that the defendants must disclose the sources it has searched (or intends to search) for electronically stored information (ESI) to the plaintiffs and, for each source, identify the search terms used.

Read more

Court Awards Sanctions, But Declines to Order Defendants to Retain an eDiscovery Vendor – Yet – eDiscovery Case Law

September 17, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., California Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery and awarded partial attorney’s fees as a result of defendants’ conduct. The judge did not grant the plaintiff’s request to order Defendants to retain an eDiscovery vendor to conduct a thorough and adequate search for responsive electronic documents, but did note that the court would do so “if there are continuing problems with their document productions”.

Read more

Judge Says “Dude, Where’s Your CAR?” – eDiscovery Case Law

September 05, 2013

By Doug Austin

Ralph Losey describes a unique case this week in his e-Discovery Team ® blog (Poor Plaintiff’s Counsel, Can’t Even Find a CAR, Much Less Drive One). In Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, the defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ document production agreement was granted after Alabama Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady rejected the plaintiff’s excuse that “it is having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery”.

Read more

Data Needs to Be Converted More Often than You Think – eDiscovery Best Practices

September 03, 2013

By Doug Austin

We’ve discussed previously that electronic files aren’t necessarily ready to review just because they’re electronic. They often need processing and good processing requires a sound process. Sometimes that process includes data conversion if the data isn’t in the most useful format.

Read more

Judge Sides with Both Parties in Form of Production Dispute – eDiscovery Case Law

August 30, 2013

By Doug Austin

The opinion in Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC suggests that producing parties can satisfy their obligation to produce documents in an organized manner by offering a table of contents, rendering text searchable, indicating which data responds to which request, and including certain metadata, such as Bates numbers.

Read more

Default Judgment Sanction Upheld on Appeal – eDiscovery Case Law

August 15, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Stooksbury v. Ross, the Sixth Circuit upheld the entry of default judgment as a sanction against defendants that repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including producing a “document dump” of tens of thousands of pages of nonresponsive information that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Read more

Plaintiff Needs More Than “Mere Hope” to Discover Defendant’s Personal Info – eDiscovery Case Law

August 07, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Salvato v. Miley, a wrongful death action, Florida Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant’s responses to discovery requests “based on Plaintiff's very limited showing as to the relevance of the requested discovery and the broadly drafted discovery requests”.

Read more

Court Compels Discovery of Plaintiff’s Facebook Posts as Relevant – eDiscovery Case Law

July 30, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Moore v. Miller, Colorado Senior District Judge John L. Kane ruled (over the plaintiff’s privacy objections) that the plaintiff’s Facebook posts and activity log must be produced because they related to his claims of physical injury and emotional distress and because the plaintiff put his posts directly at issue by discussing the incident giving rise to the lawsuit online.

Read more

Wish There Were Better Standards for Production of Native Files? Enough is ENF! – eDiscovery Trends

July 23, 2013

By Doug Austin

At the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, I provided updates for several of the EDRM projects, two of which (Metrics and Jobs) have already made significant announcements since the meeting. Another project, the new Native Files project, has recently released two white papers authored by EDRM member Wade Peterson (of Bowman and Brooke LLP) proposing the creation and adoption of a new ENF (encapsulated native file) standard for the production of native files.

Read more

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer – eDiscovery Case Law

July 22, 2013

By Doug Austin

On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

Read more

eDiscovery Vendors Are Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions – eDiscovery Case Law

June 13, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al., California District Judge Jeffrey S. White refused Wednesday to dismiss Nuance Communications Inc.'s patent infringement suit against Lexmark International Inc. and Abbyy Software House, and awarded reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorneys' fees and costs in excess of $130,000 as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy.

Read more

Motion to Compel Dismissed after Defendant Agrees to Conditional Meet and Confer – eDiscovery Case Law

June 11, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Gordon v. Kaleida Health, New York Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio dismissed (without prejudice) the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants' predictive coding process.

Read more

Important Considerations when Negotiating Search Terms with Opposing Counsel – eDiscovery Best Practices

June 06, 2013

By Doug Austin

Negotiating search terms with opposing counsel has become commonplace to agree on the scope of discovery. However, when you negotiate terms with the other side, you could be agreeing to produce more than you think. Craig Ball’s latest article in Law Technology News discusses the issues and tries to answer the question: Are Keywords Just Filters?

Read more

Hard Drive Turned Over to Criminal Defendant – Eight Years Later – eDiscovery Case Law

May 30, 2013

By Doug Austin

If you think discovery violations by the other side can cause you problems, imagine being this guy. As reported by WRAL.com in Durham, North Carolina, the defense in State of North Carolina v. Raven S. Abaroa filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Discovery Violations after the state produced a forensic image of a hard drive (in the middle of trial) that had been locked away in the Durham Police Department for eight years.

Read more

Google Compelled to Produce Search Terms in Apple v. Samsung – eDiscovery Case Law

May 23, 2013

By Doug Austin

In Apple v. Samsung, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted Apple’s motion to compel third party Google to produce the search terms and custodians used to respond to discovery requests and ordered the parties to “meet and confer in person to discuss the lists and to attempt to resolve any remaining disputes regarding Google’s production.”

Read more

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