Media Category

Case of the Week

Search and review the complete collection of episodes of the key cases covered weekly with analysis by Kelly Twigger

Select Issue
1 - 25 of 161 results, Dashboard / Case of the Week
thumbnail

Episode 1: EEOC v. M1 5100 Corp.

Privilege LogBad FaithSanctionsSelf-collectionESI Protocol

The discussion highlights the court’s expectations under Rule 26(g) regarding attorney supervision in ediscovery, emphasizing that counsel must actively engage in guiding and validating the client's search and collection of relevant information rather than relying solely on the client’s self-collection. It reviews practical steps attorneys can take to fulfill these obligations, including screen-sharing to define search parameters and documenting efforts, and it explains the Court's refusal to allow ESI inspection without extraordinary circumstances while warning of potential sanctions for non-compliance.

thumbnail

Episode 2: EEOC v. MVM, Inc.

Possession Custody ControlFailure to PreserveSanctionsSpoliationVideo

The case discussion explores the responsibility to preserve video and access control data in an employment dispute, emphasizing the need for proactive data retention to avoid spoliation claims under Rule 37(e). Key takeaways include establishing clear protocols for preserving third-party data within a party’s practical control, particularly in cases with potential legal action, to ensure compliance with evidentiary preservation requirements.

thumbnail

Episode 3: Livingston v. City of Chicago

ProportionalityTechnology Assisted ReviewSearch Terms

This discussion focuses on the use of technology assisted review (TAR) in ediscovery, examining a dispute over whether TAR should be applied to a subset of documents or the entire data collection. The Court ultimately supported the City's approach of using TAR on the refined set of 190,000 documents, emphasizing that the responding party is best positioned to decide on the review methodology, in line with the Sedona Principles, while rejecting the plaintiffs' demand for greater control over the review process.

thumbnail

Episode 4: Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.

Privilege LogProportionalityTechnology Assisted ReviewFailure to ProduceESI Protocol

The Court examined the proportionality of discovery costs, ultimately requiring Lawson to cover TAR expenses after finding the process had become disproportionate to the case’s needs. This decision underscores the importance of documenting ediscovery procedures and cost details thoroughly, as courts scrutinize review methodologies, reasonable costs, and staffing appropriateness in fee-shifting cases.

thumbnail

Episode 5: Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

FacebookBad FaithSanctionsFailure to ProduceDismissal

The case explores the court's approach to social media discovery, particularly when a plaintiff falsely denies having accounts that later prove relevant to case timelines. While the Court declined to impose severe sanctions due to minimal case impact and ongoing discovery, it highlighted the necessity of thorough client investigation, especially regarding social media, and stressed the importance of truthful disclosure and adherence to Rule 26(g) obligations.

thumbnail

Episode 6: Bragg v. SW Health Sys., Inc.

Failure to PreserveSanctionsLegal HoldSpoliationForensic Examination

In this case, the plaintiff sought sanctions, including dismissal, under Rule 37(e) after claiming emails documenting alleged fraud were missing, though forensic evidence showed no deletions. The Court rejected the sanctions request, emphasizing that Rule 37(e) requires clear evidence of deletion and intent to deprive, and even considered Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff for bringing the motion without sufficient basis.

thumbnail

Episode 7: Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.

Technology Assisted ReviewGeneral ObjectionsCost-shifting

This case examines the Court’s award of $94,000 in attorney’s fees to Spirit Aerosystems for their application for TAR-related costs, highlighting the importance of detailed, contemporaneous time entries and reasonable task delegation. The Court reiterated the lodestar method for fee calculation and emphasized that vague billing practices or lack of specificity could result in reduced recoveries, underscoring best practices in ediscovery cost recovery applications.

thumbnail

Episode 8: Oswald v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

ProportionalityProtective OrderFailure to ProduceCost Recovery

This case highlights the court’s enforcement of proportionality in discovery, as Costco successfully challenged overly broad requests for nationwide vehicle incidents, which were deemed disproportionate to the incident specifics. The Supreme Court upheld the protective order limiting discovery, emphasizing the importance of precisely tailored requests and clear objection protocols to ensure discovery relevance and manageability.

thumbnail

Episode 9: Easterwood v. Carnival Corp.

Failure to PreserveBad FaithSanctionsAdverse inferenceSpoliation

This case examines the requirements for spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e) in the context of Carnival's preservation protocols for video evidence, determining that no duty to preserve existed for video footage of an unrelated incident involving a different passenger. The Court’s analysis reinforces the importance of specific protocols for preserving evidence, reasonable anticipation of litigation, and the need for prejudice and intent to support spoliation sanctions.

thumbnail

Episode 10: Hampton v. Kink

FacebookProportionalityFailure to ProduceSocial Media

In this case, both parties sought to compel Facebook posts as evidence: defendants wanted access to plaintiff's public posts about her identity and experiences, while plaintiff sought posts from a private correctional staff group for comments about her or transgender prisoners. The Court addressed issues of relevance, privacy, and the scope of social media discovery, underscoring the importance of specific requests and effective preservation, collection, and authentication of social media evidence.

thumbnail

Episode 11: Barrow v. Living Word Dayton

Privilege LogProtective OrderBad FaithCompetency of CounselAttorney-Client Privilege

The appellate court upheld sanctions against the plaintiff and his counsel for failing to comply with a discovery order, highlighting the necessity for following agreed-upon discovery processes and properly managing ediscovery challenges, including privilege review and search terms. The decision emphasizes the importance of understanding a client’s data before committing to discovery agreements and seeking court assistance when limitations in resources hinder compliance.

thumbnail

Episode 12: DR Distribs., LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc. — Part 1

Possession Custody ControlFailure to PreserveBad FaithCompetency of CounselFailure to Produce

This discussion highlights a landmark decision addressing ediscovery failures, including mismanagement of electronic data, lack of supervision, and client dishonesty, all of which led to severe discovery sanctions. Key takeaways emphasize the importance of early involvement of ediscovery expertise, transparent communication with clients, and strict adherence to defensible ediscovery practices to prevent sanctions.

thumbnail

Episode 13: DR Distribs., LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc. — Part 2

Possession Custody ControlFailure to PreserveBad FaithCompetency of CounselFailure to Produce

In this discussion, Kelly Twigger and Doug Austin review key sanctions issued due to ediscovery failures, highlighting the Court's analysis of rules under 26(g) and 37. Their insights cover the importance of early and managed ediscovery practices, clear client communication, comprehensive custodian interviews, and regular CLE to avoid costly sanctions and uphold professional standards.

thumbnail

Episode 14: Reed v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Failure to PreserveSanctionsExclusion of EvidenceAdverse inferenceSpoliation

This discussion analyzes the Court's decisions on two motions for sanctions related to Royal Caribbean's alleged failure to preserve video evidence critical to a passenger injury case. Key takeaways include the importance of thoroughly planning discovery, verifying the existence of evidence, and taking proactive steps beyond issuing preservation letters to meet the burden of proof in sanctions motions under Rule 37(e).

thumbnail

Episode 15: In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.

Protective OrderProportionalityThird Party SubpoenaFailure to ProduceRedaction

This discussion reviews a court decision where Apple successfully compelled Valve to produce data on Steam’s sales and pricing as part of an antitrust case, emphasizing that Apple argued this information was crucial to its market definition in the case. Key takeaways include the importance of thorough specificity in arguments against production for proportionality or burden, using coding tools for efficient redaction management, and ensuring a comprehensive protective order is in place to safeguard sensitive information in third party subpoenas.

thumbnail

Episode 17: In re Valsartan Losartan & Irbesartan Prods. Liab. Litig.

Technology Assisted ReviewEmail ThreadingESI ProtocolSearch TermsCost-shifting

This discussion covers a multi-district litigation involving Valsartan, a blood pressure medication alleged to contain carcinogenic chemicals, where Teva Pharmaceuticals' use of an undisclosed TAR process in document review was contested. The Court highlighted the importance of transparency in technology assisted review protocols, ultimately enforcing the original ESI protocol's requirement for mutual agreement on review processes and urging early planning and collaboration in discovery for MDL cases.

thumbnail

Episode 18: Thomas v. Cricket Wireless

Failure to PreserveAttorney-Client PrivilegeLegal HoldIn Camera Review30(b)(6) corporate designee

This session covers a motion to compel legal hold notices in a class action lawsuit against Cricket Wireless, where plaintiffs seek to investigate potential spoliation after discovering that critical documents from the class period were deleted post-dismissal of a related case. The Court emphasized the plaintiffs' thorough use of discovery tools to establish "preliminary evidence of spoliation," ultimately ordering production of the hold notices due to Cricket’s refusal to provide preservation details in depositions.

thumbnail

Episode 19: Vera Bradley Designs, Inc. v. Li

Privilege LogProportionalityAttorney-Client PrivilegeFailure to ProduceGeneral Objections

This session discusses a motion to compel filed near the end of discovery, highlighting issues with boilerplate objections, lack of case law support, and insufficiently specific privilege logs. The Court emphasizes the need for detailed, substantiated objections and early discovery planning, urging parties to thoroughly understand and document their clients’ data early in the process to avoid rushed, unsupported responses and ensure effective case management.

thumbnail

Episode 20: Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Possession Custody ControlSamplingProtective OrderProportionalityHyperlinked Files

This session discusses a motion for reconsideration regarding hyperlinking in Google Apps and the challenges in collecting hyperlinked documents as attachments in ediscovery, particularly when using Google Vault for collection. The Court ultimately upheld its previous decision allowing Google Vault, emphasizing cost and proportionality while noting the need for clear protocol planning as modern collaboration platforms change how data and attachments are handled in litigation.

thumbnail

Episode 21: U.S. v. Hunt

AuthenticationCriminalSpoliationVideoText Messages

In this session, pretrial motions in a case involving threats made on social media were reviewed, focusing on the admissibility of social media posts, text messages, and video content as evidence of intent. Key points included authentication challenges, the application of FRE 902(11) for metadata, and the importance of careful ESI collection for trial evidence, emphasizing the need for strategic planning in authenticating digital content in criminal and civil cases.

thumbnail

Episode 22: Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.

Failure to PreserveSanctionsSpoliation

This discussion covers the latest development in a lengthy intellectual property dispute, focusing on a motion for sanctions due to spoliation related to Rimini Street's use of an automated file transfer process. Key points include the Court’s analysis of preservation obligations for transitory files, Rimini’s cooperation in offering to assist with third party discovery, and the importance of understanding technology and timing when addressing ESI in complex litigation.

thumbnail

Episode 23: Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeClawbackIn Camera Review

This brief decision addresses privilege and in camera review, with Magistrate Judge Hixson evaluating Apple’s attempt to clawback three documents on the basis of privilege. The Court ruled the documents were not privileged, highlighting critical considerations for accurately determining privilege, avoiding assumptions based solely on copying legal counsel, and underscoring potential issues in privilege log protocols.

thumbnail

Episode 24: U.S. Tobacco Coop., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

Privilege LogFailure to PreserveAttorney-Client PrivilegeSanctionsFailure to Produce

This case centers on a second motion to compel in a dispute between a cooperative and insurers over withheld discovery and improperly claimed privilege on documents, with a history of the insurers repeatedly failing to meet discovery obligations under the federal rules. Key issues discussed include privilege requirements, particularly in the insurance context, and the Court’s intention to consider sanctions for bad faith noncompliance with discovery rules.

thumbnail

Episode 25: Nichols v. Noom Inc.

SamplingProportionalityHyperlinked FilesFailure to ProduceCost-shifting

This case addresses the issue of whether hyperlinked documents in emails should be treated as attachments, with the Court ultimately upholding a ruling that they are not. The Court emphasizes the importance of planning for technological nuances in ESI protocols, suggesting parties proactively outline such issues to ensure relevant information is collected and accessible in discovery.

thumbnail

Episode 26: Bursztein v. Best Buy Stores, LP

Failure to PreserveBad FaithSanctionsGeneral Objections30(b)(6) corporate designee

This case examines a slip-and-fall lawsuit where the defendant's failure to preserve key surveillance footage and maintenance records led to sanctions. The Court found Best Buy’s discovery practices obstructive and dilatory, ultimately allowing the plaintiff to present spoliation evidence at trial and awarding monetary sanctions for attorney fees.