Discovery Expert Testimony Litigation 
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. That duty arises “when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.” Id. In Bistrian , one litigant argued “that the video footage does not qualify as ESI.” In response, Ms. Moore’s injuries.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 20, 2025
It has also generated a cottage industry of discovery decisions. Westlaw lists 13 decisions (not all on discovery) since February 2025. Contextually, the litigation has been described in popular media. 17, 2025), involves a lot of money. For blogs on some of them, please see “It Ends With Us” (Apr. 14, 2025); I. 354, 359 (D.
E-Discovery LLC
MAY 27, 2025
13, 2025)(unreported), [1] sanctions were imposed for failure to comply with discovery milestones in a scheduling order. The principal function of a scheduling order is to move the case efficiently through the litigation process by setting specific dates or time limits for anticipated litigation events to occur. July 9, 2023).
E-Discovery LLC
DECEMBER 17, 2024
26(a)(2) governs discovery of expert testimony. For a testifying expert, one disclosable matter is the basis, facts, and data considered by the expert in forming an opinion. Tesla moved to compel the whole ball of wax identity, a deposition, all documents and communications, invoices, etc. Fed.R.Civ.P.
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. In Rivera v. LEXIS 121277, at *11 (D.
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