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
In In Re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation , 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025), the court resolved discovery disputes over a corporate designee deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). The court: Narrowed a request for “discovery on discovery”; Ordered that, with limitations, Uber’s deponent must bring an Uber laptop to the deposition; and, Addressed discovery into alleged training to overuse privilege designations.
In two related decisions, plaintiff’s motions for sanctions for spoliation of a cell phone and for destruction of drug testing swabs, were denied. Cooper v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 2025 WL 1403350 (D. Md. May 15, 2025)(Coulson, J.)( “ Cooper I ”); Cooper v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 2025 WL 1403334 (D. Md. May 15, 2025)(Coulson, J.)(“ Cooper II ”).
The entire opinion in Metro Light and Power LLC v. Furnlite , 2025 WL 1805793 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 1, 2025), states: Defendants oppose the non-party subpoenas on undue burden and relevance grounds. But a “party lacks standing to challenge subpoenas issued to non-parties on the grounds of relevancy or undue burden.” Universitas Educ., LLC v. Nova Grp., Inc., 2013 WL 57892, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
A motion to compel the designation of an “apex” non-party document custodian was granted in In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation , 2025 WL 176001 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2025). The limiting “apex doctrine” generally does not apply to document custodians. Id. However, the stringent “apex doctrine” applied in this instance, due to the terms of an ESI Protocol.
In The Loan Source Inc. v. Newity LLC , 2025 WL 1755230 (D. Del. Jun. 25, 2025), plaintiffs’ request for production number 19 sought documents “sufficient to show Defendants’ efforts to settle a lawsuit….” Their motion to compel was granted over relevance and other objections. The court wrote: “Thus, Defendants must produce documents sufficient to show their efforts to settle the ExWorks litigation….
In Matter of City of Hagerstown, __ Md. App. __, 2025 WL 1540660 (May 30, 2025), the defendant City claimed unfair surprise when plaintiff sought to introduce at trial photographs that the City had taken, but which plaintiff had not disclosed in discovery. The Court affirmed the holding that the asserted prejudice from the failure to produce was insufficient to support exclusion of the evidence.
In Conner v. Stark & Stark, P.C., 2025 WL 1694052 (D.N.J. June 17, 2025), defendant’s privilege log helped partially defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff sued alleging wrongful termination. Defendant asserted that termination was first considered on June 26 or 27. However, its privilege log contained entries showing earlier privileged communications relating to terminating plaintiff.
In HET MCPS, LLC v. AutoFlex, Inc., 2025 WL 1615459 (D. Md. June 6, 2025), plaintiffs alleged that defendants interfered with plaintiffs’ contract and customer relationships. In this opinion, the Court addressed, among others, plaintiffs’ motion for forensic imaging. “Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed to comply with their discovery obligations and request that the Court permit third-party forensic imaging of relevant electronic devices (e.g., computers and phones used by AutoFlex an
In Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. School Bd. of Broward County , 2025 WL 1615553 (S.D. Fl. Jun 6, 2025), plaintiff moved to compel a “compliant” privilege log. The court decided six issues. The court wrote: “I agree that Defendant must serve an amended privilege log with additional information (as described below), though not everything that Plaintiff is requesting.
In Heym v. APG Housing, LLC, 2025 WL 1661414 (D. Md. June 11, 2025)(Coulson, J.), the Court applied its Principles for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Cases (“ESI Principles”) to order that a discovering party narrow its request for metadata. THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND’S “ESI PRINCIPLES” The development of the District of Maryland’s ESI Principles was described in Alicia Shelton and Michael Berman, “The ESI Principles,” in M.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) is called the “stop and think” rule. In Grullon v. Lewis , 2025 WL 1693425 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2025), the court found a violation of that rule. The court held that: To satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(g)(1) and comply with counsel’s ethical obligations as an officer of the Court, counsel must be actively involved in searching and producing discovery to Plaintiff.
It was great to hear that my friend, Phil Favro, recently opened his own law firm— Favro Law PLLC —where he offers a wide array of services, including as a Special Master, counselor on ESI and discovery issues, as well as mediation and expert witness services. Phil combines all of the attributes of someone you’d like to work with. He is smart and “knows his stuff.
Marris Hoffee and Michael Berman In Moore v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 2025 WL 1374125 (D. Md. May 30, 2025), the District of Maryland applied a three-part test for imposing spoliation sanctions. Ms. Moore alleged that she was injured when the wheelchair lift of a MetroAccess van suddenly jolted, causing her to fall. Although she did not see what the lift operator did, she believed that he did not operate the lift properly.
How Secret Service agents caught a child sex abuser distributing CSAM – The Washington Post (Jun.11, 2025), by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee is a fascinating and disturbing description of the use of electronically stored information, by dedicated law enforcement officers, to find, apprehend, and bring to justice a person who distributed child sex abuse material.
In EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL, LLC , No. 1:24-CV-3407-MLB-AWH (N.D. Ga. May 30, 2025), the EEOC prevailed on several discovery disputes. It prevailed because its attorneys did their homework and supported their litigation position with facts. The EEOC sued Mia Aesthetics on behalf of Kiera Webb, alleging disability discrimination. The agency moved to compel discovery responses.
Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 2025 WL 1591282 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2025), is another in a series of discovery decisions in the dispute involving Ms. Blake Lively and Mr. Justin Baldoni, among many others. See, e.g., “It Ends With Us” (Apr. 8, 2025); Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 2025 WL 1397047 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2025)(tax returns and financial information).
In Riffle v. Excellent Auto Glass LLC , 2025 WL 1519164 (D. Ariz. May 28, 2025), Mr. Riffle filed a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Excellent Auto Glass (“EAG”). EAG did not respond, and Mr. Riffle was granted leave to conduct discovery in support of a planned motion for default judgment. Mr. Riffle then served a subpoena on a law firm “seeking effectively all documents in the firm’s possession regarding EAG.
In Craig v. Cornerstone Trading Grp., LLC, 2025 WL 1475428 (S.D. Ind. May 22, 2025), the court wrote: The Citys objection that it did not understand the request as phrased is disingenuous at best and frankly appears more likely to be intentionally obstructionist. After a fire in Richmond, Indiana, plaintiffs sued, among others, the City of Richmond.
In Wenzler v. U.S. Coast Guard, 2025 WL 1445805 (Mar. 20, 2025), Wenzler alleged that he had been disenrolled from the voluntary U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary based on his speech on social media. Wenzler unsuccessfully asserted protected speech, retaliation, and spoliation, among other things, after two government cell phones were reset. Wenzlers sanctions motion was denied under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e).
While the facts were somewhat unique and egregious, in Little v. Hyde , 2025 WL 79685 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jan. 13, 2025)(unreported), [1] sanctions were imposed for failure to comply with discovery milestones in a scheduling order. Mr. Little sued Ms. Hyde and others for an auto tort. However, he failed to comply with a Scheduling Order, among other things, and the trial court issued preclusive sanctions.
In MD committee advances rule to shield judges personal info (Daily Record May 22, 2025), Rachel Konieczny reported on approval by the Maryland Standing Committee of Rules of Practice and Procedure of a new rule intended to bolster protections for judges seeking to shield their personal information from the public. The Daily Record reports that: The new rule, 16-942, extends the protections of the Judge Andrew F.
Marris Hoffee and Michael Berman Milne v. ProAll Intl. Mfg., Inc., 2025 WL 1374124 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2025), presents an unremarkable holding arising from remarkable facts. Plaintiffs brought tort claims, including fraud, against Defendants and later filed a motion for discovery sanctions. Under the courts local rules, such motions require a good faith conference and other procedures before filing a discovery motion.
Marris Hoffee [1] and Michael Berman Milne v. ProAll Intl. Mfg., Inc., 2025 WL 1374125 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2025), addresses the relationship between ESI Protocols and production of text message strings. The Milne court denied a motion to compel further responses to requests for production. The court recited the general principles governing discovery and requests for production.
In NJ Court Rules Police Geofence Warrants Are Constitutional (Bloomberg Law May 20, 2025), Alex Ebert reported that a New Jersey intermediate appellate court upheld a geofence warrant, within specified limits. Discussing those limits, Mr. Ebert wrote: That framework allows for a big funnel at the beginning of the process, and only requires police to have specificity when seeking to strip anonymity in the data from providers further in the process.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Lambert , __ Md. App. __, 2025 WL 1291491 (Appl. Ct. Md. May 5, 2025), addressed the important issue of apex depositions in the governmental context. Plaintiffs, a parent and a school-age minor, in a personal injury claim against a school system sought the depositions of nine high-ranking government employees.
In Cooper v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 2025 WL 1416943 (D. Md. May16, 2025)(Coulson, J.), the Court did justice and partially rescued a party that overreached by moving for sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) while not making an alternative, belts and suspenders request under Rule 37(e)(1). Defendants moved for game ending sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)(2); however, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied.
In Adams-Devonish v. KEHE Distributors , 2025 WL 1413282 (D. Md. May 15, 2025)(Aslan, J.), a pro se plaintiff sued for alleged discrimination. Plaintiffs renewed motion for sanctions was denied for several reasons. First , the Court declined to entertain a repetitive motion. It wrote: The Court has ordered production of the redacted materials, which has been completed and, as the pending motion and exhibits thereto make clear, Mr.
In Hall v. Warren, 2025 WL 1392294 (W.D.N.Y. May 14, 2025), the parties attempted to develop an ESI Protocol. When they were unable to do so, they submitted competing suggestions, and, the United States Magistrate Judge then issued a Protocol and Order Governing Discovery (the ESI Order) establishing such a protocol. The City Defendants objected to the ESI Order.
In Lacey v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1363069 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2025), plaintiff submitted a filing with erroneous AI-generated citations. The Special Master pointed out some of them. The plaintiff resubmitted a corrected filing; however, that second submittal still contained erroneous citations. Two strikes and youre out. The Special Master wrote: [T]hey had the information and the chance to fix this problem, but didnt take it.
In MyPillow CEO Can’t Delay Defamation Trial Over Atty AI Errors – Law360 (May 14, 2025), Dorothy Atkins wrote that the Judge denied MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s request to continue a defamation jury trial set for early June, finding her threat of discipline and media attention over mistakes stemming from defense counsel’s use of artificial intelligence in drafting briefs don’t warrant delaying trial in the lawsuit.
We the Protestors , Inc. v. Sinyangwe , 348 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2024), makes several important points about the relationship between ESI Protocols and redaction of produced documents. The decision begins: Before the Court is a discovery dispute that underscores the importance of counsel fashioning clear and comprehensive agreements when navigating the perils and pitfalls of electronic discovery.
In Skeans v. Atlantic Marine Corps Communities, LLC , 2025 WL 1298299 (D.S.C. May 5, 2025), the privilege logging term of the parties ESI Protocol did not determine when privilege logs for non-ESI material had to be provided. In short, the ESI Protocol applied only to ESI. The present suit arises from Defendants operation of the Laurel Bay military housing community.
The date on which the duty to preserve is triggered is foundational to application of the spoliation doctrine. [1] It was addressed in Valmarc Corp. v. Nike, Inc., 2024 WL 5112441 (D. Or. 12/31/2024). Defendants, Nike and Converse, filed a motion requesting a determination that plaintiff Valmarc d/b/a Vi3 had spoliated evidence. Vi3s Complaint alleged in part that defendants had misappropriated Vi3s anti-counterfeiting technology.
In U.S. v. Chatrie , __ Fed. 4 th __, 2025 WL 1242063 (4 th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025)(en banc), the Court issued a per curiam affirmance of the District Courts geofence decision. Fourteen judges joined in that decision. There were eight concurring opinions and one dissent. [1] Chief Judge Diaz wrote a concurring opinion. [2] Judge Wilkinson wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer, Judge King, Judge Agee, and Judge Richardson joined. [3] Judge Niemeyer wrote a concurring opinion. [4] Judge
In a Reuters Special Report, five journalists wrote These judges ruled against Trump. Then their families came under attack. | Reuters (May 2, 2025). Former Judges are speaking out. Jacquelin Thomsen, published Ex-Judges See Intimidation in Trump DOJ Arrest of Judge (Bloomberg Law May 5, 2025). She reports that a group of over 150 former federal and state judges have said that the arrest of a Wisconsin Judge is attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
In MyPillow Attys Blame Filing Error After Judge Suspects AI Use – Law360 (Apr. 28, 2025), Andrea Keckley reported that: Attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion Voting Systems Corp. executive have told a Colorado federal judge that a February brief the court suspected of being written with AI was a rough draft filed by mistake.
The Article III Coalition issued A Call to Preserve the Independence of the Judiciary. The Coalitions website displays important quotations from Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, and, the late Justice Sandra Day OConnor. The website also includes an Open Letter From Americas Former Federal Judges.
E-discovery blazed across the litigation sky more than two decades ago. There were several reasons: As a starting point, what is ESI? Forensic expert Craig Ball, Esq., notes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the term electronically stored information, but do not define it. C. Ball, Electronic Discovery Workbook (2019), 47 n. 11 (hereinafter 2019 Workbook).
In Abrego-Garcia v. Noem , __ F.R.D. , 2025 WL 1166402 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2025)(Xinis, J.), plaintiffs notified the Court of seemingly intractable discovery disputes. The case is before the District Court after the United States Supreme Courts ruling in Noem v. Abrego Garcia , 604 U.S. (2025). The District Court expedited its ruling, deciding the issues without a motion to compel: To facilitate the just and expeditious production of discovery, the Court rules on Defendants stated objections inclu
On April 10, 2025, the Judicial Conference of the United States sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate concerning the impacts of funding decisions. The letter states: As the FY 2026 appropriations cycle gets underway, we ask that the Appropriations Committees take into account the constitutional and statutory role of the Judicial Branch.
In U.S. EEOC v. Aspire Regional Partners, Inc., 2025 WL 1115300 (S.D. Oh. Apr. 15, 2025), the court ordered discovery of litigation hold notices. In my opinion, and while I agree with the result, the legal issues governing the discovery of litigation hold notices and implementation need clarity and national uniformity. In Aspire , Mr. Ayers-Banks asserted discriminatory termination by his former employer.
Sports Rehab Consulting LLC v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 2025 WL 1144559 (D. Col. Apr. 18, 2025), has a tortuous procedural history. The case turned on allegations of a monopoly over physical therapy services. Both sides objected to a report and recommendation of a special master. In the portion of the decision pertinent to this blog: Plaintiffs demand that Vail Health produce text messages from the personal devices of three individuals who are not parties to this action: Michael Shannon, who formerly
There are countless decisions, law review articles, books, and guides written on search, search design, search methodology, search tools, and search metrics. See, e.g., EDRM Search Guide ; The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery The following are a few exemplar decisions that set the stage: In Re Seroquel Prod.
Doug Austin’s blog, Informal Discovery Dispute as to TAR Implementation Resolved by Court (Apr. 17, 2025), provides an excellent description of a recent TAR protocol case. In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, 2025 WL 1112837 (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2025).
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.
130 
Let's personalize your content