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.

A Maryland court expressed concern over WMATA’s failure to produce key inspection reports after a garage slip-and-fall but declined to impose harsh spoliation sanctions, reserving judgment on narrower remedies.

The Middle District of Florida denied a joint motion to adopt an ESI protocol as a court order, stating that private agreement between parties suffices unless a proper legal basis for court involvement is demonstrated.

A recent ruling in Brito v. New Life highlights how a “quick peek” agreement revealed critical discovery failures, resulting in sanctions and reinforcing the duty to cooperate under federal procedural rules.

A court ruled on a challenge to a metadata privilege log, allowing some redactions but requiring detailed descriptions for redacted entries and email attachments.

The court in Lively v. Skyline confirmed that including materials on a privilege log concedes their relevance for discovery, reinforcing Rule 26’s implications for privilege assertions.

In Golat II, the court sanctioned counsel for omitting a key email in a discovery dispute, spotlighting the duty of candor and redefining what qualifies as a “document” in ESI.