Remove Affidavits Remove Discovery Remove Litigation
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

“Self Help” Discovery Results in Striking of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence

E-Discovery LLC

At its most general level, the holding was that a litigant may not invoke the courts to assert their legal rights, then engage in extralegal conduct. In the Courts words, the sanction alleviated prejudice to the employer and signals to Campbell and other litigants that one must deal honestly before the courts. 25, 2025)(Bredar, J.),

Evidence 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

No Privilege Log is Necessary in Limited Circumstances When Discovery Requests Are Overbroad

E-Discovery LLC

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).

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

How Not to Conduct a Meet and Confer or Comply With an ESI Protocol

E-Discovery LLC

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.

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. In Rivera v.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Requesting Parties Are Denied “Input” Into Producing Party’s Search Terms

E-Discovery LLC

In Tremblay, after the second denial, the court continued: It appears that Plaintiffs now seek to litigate that issue for a third time, and by doing so, it appears that the objective of the courts initial ruling (i.e., His Honor added: Of course, the best solution in the entire area of electronic discovery is cooperation among counsel.

Discovery 130
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