How will our new remote work world impact Rule 26 and proportionality? Read more from a current and a former judge about how things might…
A key to driving down the cost of ediscovery is to recognize that most preservation and discovery obligations are subject to negotiation — if you…
In this Title IX case involving an alleged rape by a third party, the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel in part. It ordered…
In this data privacy class action, the court denied the defendant’s request to inspect the plaintiffs’ mobile devices.
In this FMLA case, the court denied a request for forensic examination of the plaintiff’s devices, finding that it exceeded the scope of discovery.
In this alleged click-fraud case, the court concluded that a forensic inspection of the defendant’s devices was proportional to the needs of the case.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery justified the “last resort” sanction of dismissal.
In this pharmaceutical case, the court ordered the parties to randomly sample the ESI null set for responsiveness after keyword searching.
In this trade secret theft case, the magistrate denied the plaintiff’s motion for a forensic inspection of the defendant’s computers.
Scope is the extent of discovery that the parties agree to provide in a case, determined both by FRCP 26(b)(1) and the individual case’s parameters.
In this TCPA claim, the court denied a forensic examination of the plaintiff’s cell phone, finding that no relevant evidence would be discovered.
In this employment case, the court sanctioned the plaintiff for destroying cell phone records and lying under oath.