Discovery Evidence Expert Testimony 
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 25, 2025
clearly sets out a series of rules governing discovery disputes. At a status conference, each party asserted that the other had not adequately responded to discovery requests. This blog was initially posted on Electronic Discovery Reference Model. _ [1] For more information on Rule 26(g), see Golden Oldie #5 – Fed.R.Civ.P.
E-Discovery LLC
JUNE 16, 2025
WMATA moved for summary judgment based on the lack of expert testimony. First , the moving party must establish that there was a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence. That duty arises “when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.” Id. In response, Ms.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
E-Discovery LLC
MAY 27, 2025
13, 2025)(unreported), [1] sanctions were imposed for failure to comply with discovery milestones in a scheduling order. Further: Where the asserted scheduling order violation involves a discovery failure, the trial court has wide discretion to determine what sanction, if any, is appropriate. Hyde , 2025 WL 79685 (Appl. at *1, 3, 8.
Complex Discovery
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024
Understanding how courts may handle AI-generated evidence will be crucial for those responsible for managing digital content, ensuring data integrity, and navigating complex litigation involving digital forensics. John Tunheim, delves into how the judiciary can prepare for the impact of AI-manipulated evidence. Grimm (ret.),
E-Discovery LLC
JANUARY 28, 2025
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. In part, Mr. Rivera filed a motion to To obtain the appointment of a neutral expert in computer forensics. Rivera was filing meritless discovery motions.
E-Discovery LLC
DECEMBER 9, 2024
Therefore, in his view, the evidence was not sufficiently authenticated. Mr. Reddick argued that the store employees testimony was insufficient for authentication, contending that the State had failed to establish a proper foundation showing the reliability of the process. Circumstantial evidence was sufficient. Lorraine v.
E-Discovery LLC
SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
One of three defendants contended that the discovery propounded on it was not proportional because it was the least culpable of the three. Plaintiffs sought discovery “relat[ing] to other incidents involving Wiegand mountain coasters at Wisp Resort and elsewhere.” That is a very rigorous process, often necessitating expert testimony.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
Let's personalize your content