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
Boilerplate Objections and Discovery Games Require Little Effort but Result in Big Sanctions
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
Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget
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
Courts Won’t Go “Where Angels Fear to Tread” When Deciding On Search Term Issues
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
The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
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