article thumbnail

Two Recent Decisions Imposing Sanctions for Discovery Failures

E-Discovery LLC

26, 2024)(unreported), dismissals for discovery violations were affirmed. Nguh, one owner, propounded discovery on Mr. Etame, the opposing owner. The Appellate Court wrote: Mr. Etame failed to respond to discovery, and on March 3, 2022, Ms. Nguh’s discovery requests, including requests for his address and phone number.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Request to Appoint Neutral Forensic Expert Denied as Speculative and Unsupported

E-Discovery LLC

24, 2025), the court imposed sanctions on a pro se litigant who, in the courts words, has engaged in unseemly behavior towards counsel as well as improper discovery litigation. He alleged discrepancies in the timestamps of some of the emails produced by Costco as part of the discovery. Rivera was filing meritless discovery motions.

Discovery 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

“Order on Proposed ESI Order” – Is There a Better Mousetrap?

E-Discovery LLC

The court also wrote: “Quince’s September 5, 2024 letter violates the Court’s procedures for resolving discovery disputes, which requires the filing of joint discovery letters. The Court, however, considers this letter given that Deckers filed an improper affidavit earlier the same day, stating its position.” May 9, 2023).

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

The Federal “Official Information” Privilege

E-Discovery LLC

Plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents after an in-person meet and confer to attempt resolution, and after counsel “ participated in an informal discovery conference with the undersigned’s Judicial Law Clerk regarding the dispute. ” Wallace, “Discovery of Government Documents and the Official Information Privilege,” 76 Colum.

article thumbnail

Employer Erred by Downloading Former Employee’s Personal Email; But, Failure to Preserve it Was Not Spoliation; and, There Was a Gap in Employee Handbook Clause Permitting Employer Access Post-Termination

E-Discovery LLC

Based on these facts, an affidavit from IT Director Mr. Hughey, and an investigation by a technology consultant, Mr. Shapiro alleged that each of the individual defendants (and thus HHI, since they were acting in their official capacities) had accessed his emails unlawfully. Hughey deleted the account off the HHI computers.

Evidence 130
article thumbnail

Geofence Search Warrant Held Valid

E-Discovery LLC

The police affidavit stated: Based on that information, the affiant requested permission to search Google’s business records for “anonymized DeviceID data” of cell phone users that reported a location within a 100-meter radius of the main residence of the [victim’s] Frederick Road property between April 3 and April 11, 2020.

article thumbnail

Best Evidence Rule Requires Post-Level Collection for Social Media Evidence

Next Generation E-Discovery Law & Tech Blog

The court cited an affidavit submitted by an eDiscovery expert witness who noted that when X1 Social Discovery was used to collect from the Plaintiff’s Facebook account, key evidence that existed prior to the litigation was missing because it had been deleted by the Plaintiff prior to the X1 Social Discovery collection.