Author: Michael D. Berman

Did deleting “reasonably calculated” from Rule 26(b)(1) change the scope of discovery? A 2025 case clarifies the amendment’s intent and impact.

In Glaxosmithkline v. Pfizer, the Special Master denied a motion to compel, holding that no deadline existed for proposing additional search terms since the ESI Protocol set no milestone.

In U.S. v. Jones, the court rejected both overly broad and narrow interpretations of privilege waiver and explicitly denied the government’s “cumulative waiver” theory as contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 502.

A federal court finds that producing ESI with proper metadata may fulfill Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) requirements, eliminating the need for document correlation in many cases.

A federal court sanctioned attorneys $10K for violating a standing order against LinkedIn research on jurors, sparking debate over privacy, ethics, and the evolving “duty to Google” in jury selection.

A federal court barred uploading confidential discovery materials to AI, raising key eDiscovery and confidentiality issues for future Rule 26(f) discussions.

Courts may deny motions to compel even if filed before discovery closes. Feit Electric v. CFLT highlights that delays, even within discovery, can render such motions untimely. Strategic planning and local rules are key.

A recent decision in Jim Daws Trucking v. Daws, Inc. underscores how selling a server with privileged emails can waive attorney-client privilege—raising red flags for information governance and asset purchase practices.

A federal court ordered Amazon to disclose litigation hold notices and preservation efforts in a COVID-19 price gouging case, finding significant gaps and delays in its ESI preservation.

In Burge v. Teva, the court applied the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, requiring disclosure of redacted documents that evidenced fraudulent concealment involving counsel.

A Maryland court imposed Rule 37(e)(1) sanctions against a plaintiff for failing to preserve key Facebook and text message communications, providing the jury with a special instruction on the spoliation.

In Singleton v. Mazhari, the court held that a protective order motion was timely and excused meet-and-confer efforts as futile, offering guidance on both timing and procedural waivers.