Our goal for Elevate Ediscovery remains providing practical guidance and actionable tips for in-house ediscovery professionals on an array of ediscovery topics. In Part 3…
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 FCRA case, the court granted a motion to compel in part and narrowed the scope of discovery, but held that some information was…
Despite being ordered to comply with FRCP 34, the plaintiffs continued to produce emails in PDF rather than native format, leading to sanctions.
The court compelled production of files in native format, citing Rule 34, the parties’ agreement, and the potential relevance of native-format files.
The plaintiff argued his medical records weren’t relevant; the court held that he “placed his mental condition at issue” by asserting an ADA claim.
Citing FRCP 34 regarding the form of production, the court ordered a party to re-produce emails in native format rather than as searchable PDFs.
The plaintiff stated that he “will produce” responsive discovery when it is available; the court ordered him to supplement this inadequate response.
In this class action, the court denied sanctions after the plaintiffs’ demands for a broad scope of discovery yielded a predictably huge production.
In this fraudulent inducement claim, the magistrate considered the permissible scope of discovery for the parties’ cross-motions to compel.