Cooperative

Subscribe to Cooperative

For some, discovery is merely a necessary evil in the litigation process.  And so, it should come as no surprise that the discovery process is often ripe with gamesmanship.  A recent decision reminds practitioners, however, that discovery is meant to be cooperative, and gamesmanship – especially repetitive and intentional gamesmanship – may be met with “death penalty sanctions” (Heslin …
Continue Reading Court Reminds Parties That Discovery Orders Are Not a Hoax

A prior post (Keyword Searching – What is it? And How Do I Do It (Well)?) offered some tips for crafting effective search terms for use in the e-discovery process. Although those tips still hold true, today’s blog offers ways to utilize an ESI protocol to promote a more seamless electronic search process.*

An ESI protocol is…
Continue Reading Cheat Sheet for Effective Search Terms

Bursztein v Best Buy Stores, L.P., (2021 WL 1961645 [SD NY 2021]) involves a personal injury lawsuit arising from plaintiff Perla Bursztein’s slip and fall accident in a New York City Best Buy store.

During discovery, Bursztein requested: (i) video surveillance footage of the accident; (ii) maintenance, and repair records for the location of the accident; and (iii) Best…
Continue Reading Boilerplate Objections and Discovery Games Require Little Effort but Result in Big Sanctions

My February 17th blog, “Judges Make the Case for TAR” discussed the widespread acceptance by federal courts of technology assisted review (“TAR”), which is acknowledged as cost effective, efficient, and likely superior to the tried and true keyword searching methodology.  Continuing with the theme of TAR, the District Court of New Jersey recently addressed the critical importance of…
Continue Reading Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget

Employing search terms to identify documents relevant to a lawsuit is a commonly accepted practice.  However, issues inevitably arise during the process of crafting search terms.  For example, how are search terms agreed upon?  What is the proper scope of search terms? Are the proposed terms appropriate for identifying different types of electronically stored information (“ESI”)?  A decision out of…
Continue Reading Courts Won’t Go “Where Angels Fear to Tread” When Deciding On Search Term Issues

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a prevailing party may have a right to recover certain costs associated with the litigation.  Many prevailing parties seek to recoup costs attendant to e-discovery, given the expense associated with collecting, processing and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”).  However, most federal courts confronting the issue have determined that e-discovery costs are recoverable only in…
Continue Reading The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Often viewed as a necessary evil, the Rule 26(f) conference can serve as an invaluable opportunity to meaningfully discuss discovery such that the process is streamlined and seeks to avoid unnecessary (and often costly) disputes.   Generally speaking, Rule 26(f), among other things, sets the deadline for the conference as soon as practicable and at least 21 days before the scheduling…
Continue Reading The Rule 26 Conference: Necessary Evil or Critical for Streamlined and Efficient Discovery?

In 2012, Klipsch Group Inc. (“Klipsch”), a manufacturer of sound equipment, filed a complaint against ePRO E-Commerce Ltd. (“ePRO”), alleging an ePRO subsidiary was selling counterfeit headphones.  Through discovery demands, Klipsch called for the production of information relevant to the sale of the allegedly infringing product, including emails and specific sales data.    Eventually, however, it became clear that ePRO was…
Continue Reading Is a $2.7 Million Dollar E-Discovery Sanction Appropriate In a Lawsuit Valued at $20,000? The Second Circuit Says, Yes.

In Youngevity Intl’s Corp. v. Smith (No: 16-cv-00704 [SD CA December 21, 2017]), defendants sought an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 37.  The Order required Plaintiffs to remediate an improper discovery production to pay for Defendants’ costs for bringing the motion to compel and for the cost to review various improper prior productions.  Specifically,…
Continue Reading A Cooperative Discovery Process Promotes Efficient Advocacy

Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015).

In this action, defendant served plaintiff with a request for production that sought, among other things, documents related to the plaintiff’s pass rate and the data substantiating the pass rates posted in the plaintiff’s advertising materials. The plaintiff produced the relevant data in a

…
Continue Reading Failure to Cooperate During Discovery Results in Expensive Costs for Reproduction