This article examines key missteps in Wilbert v. Pyramid Healthcare, where the plaintiff’s insistence on recording a Rule 26(f) conference and imposing a “mandatory” ESI plan were deemed improper. The court's order highlights the necessity of cooperation and proportionality in ESI protocol negotiations.
A recent court decision in In Re: Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation addresses the ongoing discovery disputes over hyperlinked documents in ESI. The ruling clarifies metadata obligations and raises evidentiary concerns regarding the usability of hyperlinked materials in litigation.
The Morse decision highlights the risks of failing to comply with a court-ordered ESI Protocol. Courts may enforce such agreements strictly, but timely motions for modification can provide relief.
Courts continue to address whether an agreement to run search terms in an ESI protocol obligates parties to produce all resulting “hits.” Recent rulings, including Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Co. and Spivey v. BP Exploration, emphasize that relevance and privilege review should not be waived unless explicitly agreed upon.
The court in Li v. Merck tackled crucial discovery issues, including when the duty to preserve evidence is triggered, the scope of discovery on potential spoliation, and challenges related to document unitization. The ruling highlights important considerations for eDiscovery protocols.
In Li v. Merck & Co., Inc., the court examined issues of document unitization, where improperly formatted document production can hinder discovery. The ruling underscores the need for clear ESI protocols to avoid inefficiencies and disputes.
The Zarfati court mandated a robust ESI protocol after the Defendant failed to propose alternatives, stressing the importance of cooperation and transparency in 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 to clear court-imposed boundaries in legal discovery.
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 growing reliance on court-appointed neutrals for efficient e-discovery management.
The EEOC v. Hooters decision stresses the importance of scheduling orders in civil litigation, citing that delays caused by lack of diligence can disrupt court dockets and other cases. The court denied an extension of discovery, underscoring that “good faith” is not “good cause” for delay.
The case of Cook v. Meta Platforms highlights the enforceability of ESI protocols and the appropriate legal steps for modifying them if compliance becomes difficult or impossible.
The Ravin Crossbows court rejected broad keyword searches in e-discovery, citing their limitations and the need for cooperation in crafting practical terms. This case serves as a reminder of the risks of overbroad searches and the importance of thoughtful methodology.