In today’s “e”-dense world, attorneys often look to leverage technology to facilitate production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) during the discovery process. We do so in an effort to streamline the collection, review and production process whereby containing costs. However, as recent decisions demonstrate, parties often disagree on what methodology to use and which analytic
Generally, the party producing discovery bears the costs of production. But, shifting to the non-producing party the costs of production is sometimes warranted. This issue was recently tackled by a Kansas District Court in the matter Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, 2020 WL 3288058 (D. Kan. June 18, 2020).
Background
Following his retirement from Spirit
The Honorable Shira Scheindlin once opined against allowing custodians of ESI to collect their data stating “[s]earching for an answer on Google (or Westlaw or Lexis) is very different from searching for all responsive documents in the FOIA or e-discovery context…” and “most custodians cannot be ‘trusted’” to effectuate a legally sufficient collection. National Day
Aldinger v. Alden State Bank is a good reminder of counsel’s obligation to be cooperative in the discovery process.
Aldinger, an employment discrimination case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, involved a series of discovery disputes including Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to her First
A recent federal district court decision, Lawson et al. v Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., US Dist Ct, MD Pa, 1:17-CV-1266, Carlson, J., 2019, reminds litigants of the need to tailor discovery requests for electronically stored information (“ESI”).
Before the Court was plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ production of “all” text
Yikes! No practitioner wants to be on the receiving end of a decision that starts with the title of this post. And yet, that’s precisely how Magistrate Judge Bloom started her decision in Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA (15 cv 5826 [CBA] [LB]), ECF No. 1545 . Abbott serves as an important reminder to
The issue of production format when dealing with ESI is often the subject of discussion and disagreement. If possible, the parties to the litigation should agree at the outset to the production format. In fact, a conversation about production format, metadata and redactions (among other things) should occur at the preliminary conference and/or the Rule
I am often asked by clients and subscribers to the blog, What is E-discovery? And so, this week’s post is intended to respond to that question.
E-discovery is the abbreviated term for electronic discovery and refers to the process in which electronic data (as compared to paper or object information) is sought, located, secured, reviewed
This is Part 3 in a multi-part blog discussing various critical requirements that can serve as the road map to allow a lawyer to fulfill his/her duty of technological competence. [Click here to read Part 1 and here to read Part 2]..
After you have assessed the discovery needs and issues in a given matter,
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