E-Discovery LLC
JULY 25, 2025
6] “A party objecting to a request for production of documents as burdensome must support that objection with affidavits, other evidence, or enough information to allow the Court to make a common-sense judgment.” [7] “Courts have long condemned omnibus “any and all” document requests.” [5] 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).” [11] 30, 2025). [6]
E-Discovery LLC
MARCH 3, 2025
9, 2023)(Courts have recognized that sanctions may be imposed for improperly obtaining evidence.). It wrote: Pursuant to its inherent authority, the Court will strike the improperly used material from the pleadings, and Campbell will be barred from using it as evidence in this litigation, except for purposes of rebuttal or impeachment.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Attorney at Work
MAY 10, 2022
An exception is for technical or precise words such as “affidavit.” If you assert that there are a whole bunch of things and your opponent shows evidence that there are many fewer, your entire case may be tarnished. Repeated use of long words like “multiplicity” comes across as pompous, not learned. Multiplicity” can be vague.
Evidence at Trial
DECEMBER 17, 2021
California's secondary evidence rule (Cal. Code §§ 1521 - 1523) provides a commonsense approach that begins with a simple general rule: "The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence." Even simpler, the secondary evidence rule cannot be used as an end-run around the rules of evidence.
E-Discovery LLC
JANUARY 28, 2025
[T]he request for an independent forensic examiner is meritless because the matter of the discrepancy in the timestamps has been duly explained and Rivera has not been able to provide credible evidence that the explanation is misleading or inaccurate. Rivera was filing meritless discovery motions.
Next Generation E-Discovery Law & Tech Blog
AUGUST 30, 2023
By John Patzakis The Best Evidence Rule, as codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, provides that an original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove the contents of the document. The plaintiff had deleted his Facebook account resulting in lost evidence critical to the case.
E-Discovery LLC
OCTOBER 6, 2024
But, the Court found and held that there was no evidence that the defendants had read the emails after plaintiff’s termination. The Court rejected invasion of privacy and wiretap claims because there was no evidence that the employer had read the emails after the plaintiff was terminated. Shapiro’s post-termination emails.”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
Let's personalize your content