Author: Michael D. Berman
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
Google Avoids Discovery on Discovery Based on Insufficient Foundation for Request
In Taylor v. Google LLC, the court denied plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery, emphasizing that “discovery on discovery” requires proof of specific deficiencies. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Google’s chat messages contained unpreserved relevant evidence.
Request to Produce Documents Collected “to the Present” is Improper “Rolling Discovery”
The court in Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Co. rejected a request for “rolling discovery,” emphasizing that such practices violate prior rulings on temporal limits and proportionality in discovery. This case underscores the importance of adhering...
Court Appointed a Special Master to Negotiate ESI Protocol
In UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, the court appointed Hon. James C. Francis (ret.) as a Special Master to mediate ESI Protocol disputes, facilitate settlement efforts, and expedite the case. This decision highlights the...
Authentication of Surveillance Video by Lay Witness Under Silent Witness Doctrine
The Reddick v. State case expands the role of lay witnesses in authenticating surveillance video under the “silent witness” doctrine. It highlights evolving legal standards for video evidence reliability in complex digital systems.
What “Expenses” Can a Non-Party Recover for Complying with a Discovery Subpoena?
A recent decision in OL Private Counsel, LLC v. Olson examines the recovery of expenses by non-parties complying with discovery subpoenas under Rule 45. While significant expenses for document production may be reimbursed, deposition costs...
Does Every “Hit” on a “Hit Report” Have to be Produced?
Courts often allow parties to review documents for relevance before production, even when a document is flagged in a “hit report.” This article discusses the legal nuances of hit report relevance in discovery, including how...
Service of a “Preservation Notice” in the Forum District Does Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Out-of-State Sender
In Plastics Industry Assoc. v. Bonta, the D.C. court found that a preservation notice sent to an entity in the forum state does not confer long-arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. This ruling clarifies that...
Privilege Objections Denied Without Prejudice
In a recent ruling, the court denied TEDCO’s privilege objections for lack of specificity, underscoring that blanket claims cannot shift the burden of proof to the court. However, TEDCO may refile supported objections after a...
“Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence”
Rig Consulting, Inc. v. Rogers addresses the enduring influence of the “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery” standard despite the 2015 amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). This well-reasoned decision reiterates the importance of relevant, proportional discovery...
Is Marking Documents as “Work Product” an Admission that the Duty to Preserve is Triggered?
The intersection of marking documents as “work product” and the common-law duty to preserve raises critical implications for litigation holds. In cases like Stuart v. County of Riverside, courts have inferred a link between work...
Is a Web Bug a Wiretap?
The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Vita v. New England Baptist Hosp. found that web tracking and browsing data collection does not constitute a “wiretap” under Massachusetts law, as the statute’s scope applies only to person-to-person...
Dilatory Objections to Corporate Designee Topics Were Too Late; “Blanket” De-Designation Request Was Denied
The court in U.S. v. Novo Nordisk rejected Washington’s untimely objections to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics and denied a blanket request to de-designate confidential documents. The ruling led to Washington’s failure to specify overbroad topics...