Case of the Week

This case centers on a dispute over Maker's Mark's licensing agreement with Spalding and issues with Spalding’s document production process, including self-collection by employees without attorney oversight. The Court ultimately denied Maker's Mark's motion to compel further searches due to lack of timely objections and insufficient evidence of flawed collection, emphasizing the need for prompt, documented collaboration on ESI protocols.

In this case, Don Blankenship seeks to compel expanded document production from Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, arguing that additional custodians and broader date ranges are necessary to support his defamation and conspiracy claims regarding his U.S. Senate campaign. The Court granted some requests based on demonstrated relevance and a clear link to the claims, emphasizing the importance of specific custodians and precise documentation to avoid fishing expeditions and meet proportionality requirements.

This case involves three motions: a motion to compel ESI production in native format, a motion to compel additional discovery responses, and a motion for sanctions related to alleged spoliation of evidence. The Court ruled that, because the parties had previously agreed to produce documents in PDF format without specifying metadata requirements, the plaintiffs could not later request a different format without first reaching a new agreement, highlighting the importance of clear and early agreements on ESI protocols and production format.

This discussion highlights the importance of using Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) orders in ESI cases to protect against inadvertent waiver of privilege, providing specific examples of how a 502(d) order can prevent disclosure pitfalls. Key elements include establishing processes for handling privilege claims, clawbacks, and deposition usage, especially in cases involving large volumes of data or asymmetrical production.

In this case, the Court evaluated a motion for sanctions based on the plaintiff's failure to preserve Snapchat data, emphasizing the duty to preserve ESI when litigation is anticipated. The Court ultimately declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims but imposed monetary sanctions and allowed an adverse inference due to the plaintiff's inconsistent explanations and deletion of relevant data, highlighting the critical need for thorough ESI preservation and counsel’s responsibility in overseeing clients' social media data management in discovery.

This decision addresses motions to quash subpoenas issued to Under Armour’s ediscovery service providers and an employee, examining the extent of attorney-client privilege and work product protection for documents relating to spoliation claims in a wrongful termination case. The Court upheld the privilege protections after an in camera review, finding no grounds to pierce privilege based on the crime-fraud exception or substantial need, highlighting the importance of early identification and careful documentation of privilege in ediscovery.

This decision centers on an emergency motion in limine just before trial to exclude a witness, David Crocker, based on claims that the plaintiff failed to adequately disclose him in initial and pretrial disclosures as required by Rule 26. The Court ultimately denied the motion, finding the disclosure of Crocker’s union affiliation sufficient and attributing the defense’s lack of awareness to their failure to follow up, reinforcing the importance of timely and thorough initial disclosures and proactive supplementation under Rule 26(e).

This case addresses a motion to compel Fitbit data in a personal injury lawsuit, where the plaintiff claims long-term physical limitations from a defective hip implant. The Court granted the motion, finding the wearable data relevant to assessing the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, while allowing redactions to protect the plaintiff’s privacy regarding heart rate, sleep, and location data.

In this analysis, the Court evaluated a plaintiff's motion to compel the production of web pages and a limited forensic inspection of the defendant’s electronic devices, focusing on whether the defendant's new business directly competed with the plaintiff in violation of a non-compete agreement. The decision addresses the relevance of deleted promotional materials, outlines a protocol for forensic imaging, and discusses the factors for assessing the need for direct data access from mobile devices, ultimately providing a framework for managing digital evidence in competitive disputes.

This case addresses a criminal appeal in which the defendant challenges the authentication of text messages used as evidence under Colorado Rule of Evidence 901(a). The appellate court upheld the trial court’s admission of the text messages, outlining specific criteria for authentication and emphasizing that missing responses affect the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.

The Court addressed a motion for sanctions after discovering that the plaintiff fabricated key evidence and failed to preserve relevant electronic data, leading to dismissal of her case and sanctions on her and her counsel. This decision underscores the importance of evidence authenticity in ediscovery, highlighting the severe consequences of misconduct and the critical responsibility of legal counsel to verify and preserve digital evidence accurately.

This discussion covers the Court's review of a motion for sanctions following the EPA's failure to preserve key data from mobile devices and cloud storage related to a major environmental spill, raising questions of reasonable preservation practices. The Court ultimately imposed sanctions limiting the EPA's ability to present its defense narrative while addressing challenges surrounding the timeliness, accessibility, and intent of data preservation actions taken by EPA custodians involved in the incident.

This case examines whether Google Ads data in an online dashboard qualifies as "control" for purposes of discovery and if the defendant must produce specific reports from the platform in response to a motion to compel. The court determined that the defendant had control over the data in the Google Ads account and ordered either the generation of reports with specific data fields or limited access for the plaintiff to create the reports directly.

The court addressed a motion for sanctions after the FTC revealed that SBH’s leadership used encrypted platforms to intentionally delete relevant communications, concealing them from discovery. The decision emphasizes the duty to preserve evidence once litigation is foreseeable and highlights the consequences of intentional spoliation, resulting in an adverse inference against SBH for depriving the FTC of critical information.

This case centers on whether Facebook’s archived content related to the Rohingya genocide falls under the protections of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and whether it should be produced in an international tribunal under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The Court ultimately ruled that Facebook’s preserved data, which includes public pages and internal investigation documents about Myanmar government activity, is not protected by the SCA and must be shared to support Gambia's genocide claims in the International Court of Justice.

This decision covers a motion to compel in a patent infringement case, addressing whether depositions should be conducted in person during a COVID-19 resurgence, the need for non-party subpoenas, and access to certain “highly confidential” documents. The Court denied in-person depositions due to pandemic risks, emphasized the importance of issuing subpoenas for non-party witnesses, and ultimately granted access to disputed confidential documents based on prior agreements and insufficient opposition from the defendant.

This decision examines whether the government’s inability to access an encrypted database produced by Theranos impacted defendant Elizabeth Holmes’s rights to present a full defense. The Court found that Holmes’ claims about the database’s exculpatory potential were speculative and held that the government bore no responsibility for the database’s inaccessibility, as Theranos dismantled it shortly after production.

In this ruling on a motion to compel, the Court examined whether a party agreeing to search terms in an ESI protocol waives its right to conduct a relevance review on the results. Judge Peterson rejected the notion that agreeing to search terms overrides Rule 26(b)(1) requirements, holding that Microsoft could perform a relevance review of documents retrieved by search terms if done within a reasonable time frame.

This case addresses a digital artist’s copyright infringement claim against Pinterest, focusing on whether the artist must provide a full list of alleged infringements or if a sampling is sufficient. The Court ruled that the artist must identify all instances of infringement, emphasizing the need for detailed planning in digital copyright cases and the importance of timely third party discovery.

This case addresses whether a county jail’s video footage should have been preserved in a detainee's lawsuit, focusing on the timing of the duty to preserve evidence and the adequacy of plaintiff's preservation notice. The Court ultimately denied sanctions, determining that the plaintiff’s notice was insufficient to trigger an early preservation obligation, and emphasized the importance of specifying relevant details when requesting evidence preservation.

This case explores ediscovery issues related to the organization and form of production in a breach of contract case, focusing on whether the defendant's document production met Rule 34 standards for maintaining documents in their ordinary course or labeling them by request. The Court emphasized the need for specific metadata and thoughtful planning of production formats to facilitate efficient document review, leaving open the plaintiff’s motion to compel pending more detailed information on the production’s organization and usability.

This decision reviews a dispute over the timeliness and adequacy of a defendant's supplemental production of Slack messages, emails, and YouTube watch history, addressing the applicability of sanctions under Rule 37. The District Court partially upheld the Magistrate Judge's ruling but allowed additional discovery into the YouTube watch history's provenance, emphasizing the necessity for clear presentation of evidence and adherence to Rule 26 and 37 standards.

This decision discusses a Texas court's grant of default judgment against Alex Jones and his company, Infowars, due to repeated and serious discovery abuses, marking a significant sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders. The ruling highlights the weight courts place on consistent discovery misconduct across related cases, and it contrasts Texas law’s approach to sanctions with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, noting Rule 37(b)’s potential for sanctions without requiring intent in cases of disobeying court orders.

This case highlights the severe consequences of inadequate discovery responses, where a Magistrate Judge recommended multiple sanctions, including adverse inferences and evidence exclusions, due to the defendant's failure to comply with discovery orders in a franchise agreement dispute. The ruling underscores the importance of thorough and timely responses in discovery, as sanctions like these can effectively dismantle a party's ability to present their case.

This decision covers a motion for sanctions in a case involving alleged ADA and civil rights violations, where the plaintiff’s discovery practices were challenged, including issues around the production of a personal timeline, missing text messages and audio recordings, social media alterations, and document production. The Court ultimately permitted re-depositions to explore potential spoliation and underscored the importance of early evidence preservation, especially for social media and mobile data, and proper handling of document production in compliance with Rule 34.