-
Plaintiffs in Class Action Lawsuit Allege Nissan “Leaf” Much to be Desired
Japanese car manufacturer Nissan is defending allegations of unfair consumer and business practices, breach of implied warranty and negligent misrepresentations by plaintiffs in Klee v. Nissan, Case No. CV-1208238DDP (PJWx), filed September 24, 2012 in the federal district court for the Central District of California. Brought on behalf of a
-
Will the Supreme Court Clarify Electronic Discovery Taxation of Costs Under Section 1920?
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 should be well known to litigators practicing in federal court, as it authorizes taxation of costs for printed or electronically recorded transcripts, fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses, and fees for the costs of copies. As noted in our blog about the eDiscovery case Race
-
Court Takes Step Back from Overbroad Social Media eDiscovery Requests in Favor of Plaintiff
In Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., 2012 WL 3939063 (C.D. Cal.), plaintiff filed an employment discrimination against the home improvement store, alleging to have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and isolation due to the defendant’s wrongdoing. Defendant Home Depot argued that plaintiff’s postings on social networking sites (“SNS”) were likely
-
California District Court Denies Defendant Google’s Request for eDiscovery Costs
In Oracle America v. Google, No C 10-03561 (N.D.C.A. September 4, 2012), a California district court recently considered defendant Google’s request to shift costs related to its ediscovery vendor. In the case, Oracle alleged 132 patent infringement claims on seven separate patents, but lost each one. Oracle only prevailed on
-
Electronic Discovery and Incarceration: An Extreme Sanction for An Extreme Case
This blog’s alternate title is the eDiscovery Gang that Couldn’t Spoliate Straight, as both vivid lines are lifted straight from the court’s opinion in Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. et al., No. MJG-06-2662 (D.C.M.D. 2010). The defendant in this case engaged in what may be the most egregious
-
Samsung Chokes on Apple After Email Spoliation
Defendant Samsung had a rough week in court. Apple had sued Samsung for patent infringement, and the defendant was ill-equipped for electronic data discovery. This led to a breach of its duty to preserve evidence and might have contributed to the $1 billion verdict entered against it by a jury
-
Second Circuit Takes Two Steps Back to Enforce Duty to Preserve Evidence
The standardization of eDiscovery protocols and better computer forensics is giving a boost in modern litigation to plaintiffs seeking to uncover the truth. Electronic data is difficult to hide or destroy, as it almost always leaves trace artifacts and trails. This was evident in the Zubulake series of cases where
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rewrites the Rules for Electronic Discovery
Electronic data discovery is constantly evolving in both the state and federal courts. Federal courts now have accumulated a large amount of eDiscovery case law (much of which is discussed in our blog). Many state court opinions turn to and cite federal jurisprudence and the amendments to the Federal Rules
-
The Scope of Social Media in Plaintiff ESI Production
Litigants and courts struggle to define the scope of electronic data discovery, as well as the logistics of how to physically produce the electronically stored information. The newest scope and logistical challenges for ESI now lies in social media content. In EEOC v. Simply Storage Management, LLC Case No. 1:09-cv-1223-WTL-DML
-
Defendant’s “Document Dump” Leads to Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
Defendants often employ an old, tired tactic to overwhelm plaintiffs’ counsel in response to discovery requests: Bury them in paperwork! However, litigants may want to rethink this strategy, as the use of a “document dump” for electronically stored information (ESI) can lead to inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. In the