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 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.

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.

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.