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 FCRA case, the court granted a motion to compel in part and narrowed the scope of discovery, but held that some information was…
The court compelled production of files in native format, citing Rule 34, the parties’ agreement, and the potential relevance of native-format files.
The court denied sanctions where the plaintiff “accidentally” deleted emails, rejecting as “speculative” the claim that she had a duty to preserve.
The plaintiff stated that he “will produce” responsive discovery when it is available; the court ordered him to supplement this inadequate response.
In this fraudulent inducement claim, the magistrate considered the permissible scope of discovery for the parties’ cross-motions to compel.
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 chastised the recalcitrant plaintiff and his counsel for inexplicably refusing to produce relevant phone records.
Workplace sexual harassment claims are everywhere — and an effective ediscovery response is critical. We review what you need to know to prepare.
In this wrongful termination case, Tingle v. Hebert, the court partially granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce personal data.