The Lively v. Wayfarer Studios case continues to raise key eDiscovery issues, with the latest ruling mandating production of Signal messages and search terms, while dismissing reciprocal demands as unfounded.
A Delaware federal court denied, without prejudice, Belvac’s motion to compel preservation of RAM data, citing lack of good cause under its Default Standard. The case highlights the challenges of ephemeral data preservation in eDiscovery disputes.
In a discovery battle over $24 million in damages, the court imposed an ESI protocol in Everlast Roofing v. Wilson, mandating cost sharing, TAR-based sampling, and a unique clawback for irrelevant documents—highlighting the perils of dysfunctional discovery and the judiciary’s role in restoring order.
This article explores the legal nuances of spoliation motion timing, highlighting the risks of premature or delayed filings. It also offers a proactive framework using ESI Protocols and discovery plans.
In Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. School Bd. of Broward County, the court addressed six privilege log disputes, offering practical guidance on adequacy, role identification, email threads, and subject descriptions in discovery.
In Milne v. ProAll, the court denied a motion to compel further text message production, affirming that speculative claims and perceived format challenges are insufficient without concrete evidence of non-compliance with ESI protocols.
We the Protestors, Inc. v. Sinyangwe highlights the need for precision in ESI Protocols, particularly regarding the definition of a “document” and redactions for irrelevance. The court's analysis underscores that redactions must be explicitly agreed upon or judicially approved.
In Skeans v. Atlantic Marine, the court clarified that an ESI Protocol governs only electronically stored information, not non-ESI materials, thereby requiring a separate privilege log timeline for non-ESI. It also addressed inadequate interrogatory responses under Rule 33(d).
Legal teams often assume IT will be ready to assist with data collection, but lack of coordination can cause delays and jeopardize evidence. This article explains how to avoid conflict and ensure defensible collections by involving IT early.
In a key discovery ruling, the Eastern District of New York emphasized the power of an ESI Protocol in compelling compliant document production. The court ordered reproduction of unsearchable PDFs and rejected the excuse of overproduction as a sign of transparency.
The court in Orlando Health v. HKS Architects found the ESI Protocol binding even though it wasn’t entered as a court order. However, it denied a motion to compel based solely on the protocol, emphasizing the necessity of a Rule 34 request.
In Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., the court emphasized that ESI Protocols must be specific to be effective, especially in complex GenAI copyright disputes. The ruling highlights the risks of unresolved ESI disagreements and judicial discretion in imposing discovery terms.