Remove Case Law Remove Discovery Remove Subpoenas
article thumbnail

Possession, Custody, or Control of Responsive Information by States Suing Meta

E-Discovery LLC

34 discovery requests propounded by defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., 34 discovery requests propounded by defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta responded that Rule 34 requests were proper and it should not be forced to serve over 200 subpoenas under Rule 45. 2024), applies the “legal control” standard to Fed.R.Civ.P.

Subpoenas 130
article thumbnail

Court Declines To Compel Employer To Produce Data from Employees’ Personal Mobile Devices

Discovery Advocate

Relying on an employee’s memory without an accompanying thorough discussion – informed by potentially relevant technical considerations of where data may reside and a more robust effort to locate it – is unlikely to constitute a “reasonable search” for purposes of defending a response to a request for non-objectionable discovery.

Subpoenas 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

Court Declines To Compel Employer To Produce Data from Employees’ Personal Mobile Devices

Discovery Advocate

Relying on an employee’s memory without an accompanying thorough discussion – informed by potentially relevant technical considerations of where data may reside and a more robust effort to locate it – is unlikely to constitute a “reasonable search” for purposes of defending a response to a request for non-objectionable discovery.

Subpoenas 130
article thumbnail

Waiver of Untimely Objections to Interrogatories: Is it = or ≠ to Requests for Production of Documents?

E-Discovery LLC

21, 2025), the court wrote that: Neither side distinguishes between waiver of untimely objections to interrogatories and waiver of untimely objections to RFPs, even though important differences exist in both the applicable rules of civil procedure and the case law construing them. 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. 2d 803, 808 (4th Cir.1958)