Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle, No. 17 Civ. 3360 (RWS), 2017 WL 3721777 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2017)
In this case, the Southern District of New York imposed an adverse inference against defendants for their failure to preserve text messages that were in the possession of a non-party. Specifically, Judge Sweet imposed an adverse inference against defendants based
Continue Reading In the SDNY, a Party Is Sanctioned for the Preservation Failures of a Third-Party
I recently wrote about the importance of styling one’s litigation hold in a broad, but sufficiently specific way (See, “Your Litigation Hold Must be Generally Broad and Specifically Tailored”). Some of you may be thinking, well, that’s all fine and good but what is a litigation hold? Why and when do I need one? And what should
Continue Reading Practical Tips For an Effective Litigation Hold Notice
Mueller v. Swift, (D. Col. 2017) 2017 WL 2362137
Some opinions just have it all, and Mueller v. Swift does not disappoint! Indeed, in this lawsuit, Taylor Swift, the pop sensation who has been sweeping the nation, alleges she was the victim of sexual misconduct, assault, and battery.
What in the world do such allegations have to do with
Continue Reading Taylor Swift and the Java-Dump: An E-Discovery Tale
Lawyers often worry about their obligation to preserve relevant information. As a result, one may direct their client to collect all potentially responsive information. However, over-collecting is a significant cause of costly e-discovery. So, what is a lawyer to do?
It is critical not to conflate preservation and collecting.
While collecting is one way to preserve information, it is a
Continue Reading Preserving vs. Collecting – What’s the Difference? And, Why Does it Matter?
In a trademark infringement case pending in the Northern District of California (InternMatch v. Nxtbigthing, 2016 WL 491483 [N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016]), plaintiff requested copies of any documents relating to the defendants’ defense that it had continually and pervasively used the trademark at issue. The defendants were not able to produce many responsive documents and advised
A recent decision from the United States District Court of the District of Connecticut demonstrates the need for proper custodian interview before responding to discovery requests. Electrified Discounters, Inc. v MI Technologies, Inc. (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64950) involved a dispute over sales of replacement lamps for rear projector televisions and front projectors, via online marketplaces like Amazon.com.
The plaintiff
Continue Reading You Really Should Check With Your Client Before Objecting to Discovery Requests
In an earlier post (SEE reference to my top 10 list), I noted the importance of issuing a timely and proper legal hold notice. In case you failed to appreciate the critical importance of this step, a reading of the insurance case of Fidelity Nat. Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7