This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
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.
In previous blogs, I addressed decisions holding that Where Requests for Discovery were Overly Broad, No Privilege Log was Required (Oct. 12, 2024); No Privilege Log Is Needed While Scope of Discovery Objections Are Pending (Aug. Baltimore Police Dept., 2025 WL 509130 (D. 24, 2024). See generally Fed. 25, 2021).
The affidavit further recited that the employee was expressly barred from accessing the records. She will be barred from using those materials as affirmative evidence in her case, even if the materials would have been obtained through discovery. This blog was initially posted on Electronic Discovery Reference Model and JD Supra.
28, 2025), the court entered an order denying plaintiffs motion to compel supplemental document discovery and closing discovery. The court recited the discovery history and added: Despite the relative simplicity of this action, discovery has been anything but simple. Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP , 2025 WL 942414 (S.D.
to prevent delays and the stalling of the discovery process stemming from endless discovery disputes over methodology and search-term formulation) has been nevertheless frustrated. His Honor added: Of course, the best solution in the entire area of electronic discovery is cooperation among counsel. Victor Stanley, Inc.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Court held it would be unduly burdensome for the Producing Party to produce the ESI with metadata after originally producing the discovery as paper. AutomationDirect.com, Inc., McSparran, at *11.
As to this discovery issue, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. It is not clear if either side had experts explaining the search terms in affidavits. For example, Plaintiff has not shown that she would be unable to uncover the same information by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled to be deposed.
And many times that’s in the discovery space. And they want to be able to compare them to understand, you know, to be able to look at apples to apples, and to look at the efficiencies and each one of their discovery vendors. But it can be in Legal Operations and other areas as well.
See Keeping an Eye on Geofence Warrants E-Discovery LLC (Jan. Geofence Search Warrant Held Valid E-Discovery LLC (Jun 28, 2024). This blog was initially posted on Electronic Discovery Reference Model. Recently, there has been a split of authority between the Fourth and Fifth Circuits over geofence warrants.
1] After briefing and review of defense affidavits, none of which were available to Judge Engelmayer, the States narrowed their requested injunction. Grimm Regarding Threats and Attacks on Judges (Feb. 11, 2025)(Emphasis added). Thats not political. Its patriotic. The motto of the U.S. Army is: This well defend. [1]
E-discovery professionals are on the front lines of detecting deep fakes used as evidence, according to Marathe. Catch Deepfakes If You Can: Can E-Discovery Tools Keep Up With Gen AI? So yeah, that’s that’s the that’s the discovery portion of it. They are easy and inexpensive to create but difficult to detect.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content