The duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence – documentary or electronic – arises when a lawsuit is reasonably anticipated.  Although this is a subjective standard,  Parlux Fragrances, LLC et al v. S. Carter Enterprises, LLC et al.  illustrates a recent decision where a court imposed  sanctions and an adverse inference because the defendants failed to

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

Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, when a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and

(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—

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

Technology has revolutionized, among other things, the way people conduct business, store information and communicate with others.  And, despite the many efficiencies and benefits of technology, a downside of this “revolution” is the creation of countless files that may later be subject to review and potential production during litigation /investigation proceedings.  Indeed, even relatively small

Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls upon courts and litigants to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” And so, it comes as no surprise that technology assisted review (“TAR”) is being widely embraced by the legal profession.

What is TAR?

TAR (also called predictive coding,