-
Plaintiff Awarded Fees for Unorganized and Misclassified Defense Production
In our last blog, we began a discussion of the state court case Hull et al. v. WTI, Inc., A13A0003 (Ga.Ct.App. June 18, 2013). In this complex business litigation case, the defendants produced 156,000 documents that the plaintiffs characterized as unorganized and a violation of defendant’s discovery duties. Additionally, the
-
Georgia Appeals Court Considers Proper Form of Document Production and Confidentiality
Proprietary issues in business litigation can sometimes result in disputes regarding confidentially and discovery production. In the state court case Hull, et al. v. WTI, Inc., A13A0003 (Ga.Ct.App. June 18, 2013), the Court of Appeals in Georgia took up an interlocutory appeal regarding sanctions imposed on defendants for the trial
-
New Federal Rules May Change Culpability for Spoliation Sanctions in 2nd Circuit
In our last blog, we discussed the memorandum decision dated June 10, 2013 in Sekisui America Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL 2951924 (S.D.N.Y.). In this case, the court noted that in the Second Circuit, “mere” negligence fulfills the second requirement of “culpable state of mind,” as required for spoliation sanctions.
-
Federal Rule 34 Regarding ESI: What is the Correct Means of Document Production?
In an interim order by a magistrate judge dated June 28, 2013 in Kwasneiwski et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, et al., 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. 2013), the defendants responded to plaintiff discovery requests by producing a large amount of documents and data that was not organized to match the requests.
-
QK Healthcare and the Examination of Electronic Evidence Spoliation
In our last blog, we discussed the recent interim opinion in QK Healthcare, Inc. v. Forest Laboratories, Index No. 117407/09 (May 13, 2013). The court noted that electronic data in civil litigation necessitates a new standard that is different from the traditional rules about spoliation of evidence. In finding that
-
Computer Crashes Raise Questions of eDiscovery and Electronic Data Spoliation
Prior to the onset of electronic data saved in native file format, paper documentation in large banker boxes ruled the discovery process for physical evidence. This has completely changed in the last 10 to 15 years, as electronic files in native format are now commonly requested and produced in civil
-
Does Production of Hard Copies Negate the Need for Native Files?
What happens when you have lost electronic files and a destroyed computer, but you contend your document production was completed before the computer was discarded? To see how that argument went over in a New York appellate court, check out Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Mendez Moskowitz et al., 2013 NY
-
Plaintiff Electronic Discovery in Patent Case: Disclosing the Source (Code)
In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff held a patent dealing with weather reporting and forecasting. In Baron Services, Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC, No. 11-CV-1606 (Fed. Cir. 2013), plaintiff Baron filed a patent-in-suit claim against defendant MWI, a company that
-
Asbestos MDL: Plaintiffs Will be Prejudiced Without Scientific Data
Would it be fair for a defendant to use scientific studies as a sword in litigation, but then wield a shield of privilege to prevent disclosure of the underlying scientific and electronic data used in those studies? In a recent order in the case, In re New York City Asbestos
-
Plaintiff Awarded $134,613 as Sanction for Late Discovery Production
What constitutes a valid excuse for late production when answering plaintiff eDiscovery and document requests? An order dated May 22, 2013 in Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, et al., No. C 08-02912 JSW (N.D.Cal. 2013) considered an excuse from a defendant when ruling upon plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.