Case of the Week

In this case analysis, the Court reviewed the constitutionality and implications of a "geofence warrant," which required Google to provide anonymized location data of devices within a specific area and timeframe to identify potential suspects in a criminal investigation. The Court's decision highlights the legal framework and privacy considerations for geofence warrants, emphasizing the requirement of probable cause, particularity, and judicial oversight to protect non-suspects' privacy while using modern technology for investigative purposes.

This case examines a defendant's last-minute attempt to obtain medical records of a deceased witness, who had testified about using a specific brand of asbestos-containing brakes, in order to challenge his competency due to a recent dementia diagnosis. The Court denied the requests for both a competency hearing and the medical records, emphasizing the importance of timely discovery requests and clarifying the standards of custody and control in discovery.

This case covers a motion to compel and for sanctions against a plaintiff for alleged misuse of privilege designations in withholding documents from a prior, related litigation. The Court emphasizes that improperly marking information as privileged can be sanctionable even without a specific court order, and it permitted in camera review to verify privilege claims before deciding on possible Rule 37 sanctions.

This case discusses a plaintiff's motion for a protective order to quash a third-party subpoena regarding communications tied to an oral contract dispute, citing confidentiality and undue burden. The Court considered relevance, necessity, and burden factors, ultimately favoring disclosure but paused its decision due to the defendant’s new request for similar documents from the plaintiff, illustrating the impact of strategic decisions on ongoing discovery motions.

In this case, the Court analyzed attorney-client privilege and work product protection for account notes entered into a CRM system by a law firm with non-lawyer partners who had access but did not access the notes, ultimately finding the notes privileged. The decision highlights the importance of agency relationships, the confidentiality of attorney notes even within a CRM accessible by non-lawyers, and the critical need for detailed privilege logs in ediscovery practice.

This decision examined the limits of recoverable ediscovery costs under 28 USC 1920, specifically concluding that only expenses associated with making copies (like converting files to TIFF or PDF formats) are recoverable, while costs for processing, indexing, or OCR are not. The case underscores the importance of clearly itemizing recoverable ediscovery costs to facilitate cost recovery and avoid unnecessary litigation expenses.

Arconic Corporation and Howmet Aerospace Inc. filed a motion to recuse the Special Master based on the author field of the metadata in the Court's opinion and order documents. The Court determined that the author metadata was not a reliable way to determine the actual writer of the court's opinions and denied the motion, finding that a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, could not reasonably question the judge's impartiality or independence. The Court noted that the metadata fields showing the Special Master's staff as author and the created date were accessible on the document emailed to counsel in December 2020.

This analysis covers a court ruling on a motion for sanctions related to extensive data spoliation and delayed production by the plaintiff in a discrimination and retaliation case. The Court granted sanctions due to the plaintiff's deletion of key ESI, unauthorized use of encrypted messaging, and improper preservation practices, emphasizing the importance of clear preservation protocols for ESI and adherence to federal discovery rules.

This session explores the Court’s decision on a motion to compel a corporate representative to produce documents as a custodian, addressing key issues around timeliness and proportionality in ediscovery. Participants will gain insights into early custodian identification, strategic planning in document review, and best practices for structuring ESI protocols to avoid complications later in litigation.

This session discusses a court’s denial of a motion to compel in an ediscovery dispute over proportionality and search terms, with an emphasis on the importance of cooperation and early planning for efficient discovery processes. Key takeaways include the value of aligning discovery costs with case value, the need to understand ESI obligations, and the benefits of clearly defined search terms to avoid unnecessary litigation delays.

This session covers a court's denial of a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(e) due to the plaintiffs' failure to meet the standard requirements for showing prejudice and intent to deprive. Key takeaways include understanding the appropriate use of Rule 37(e) versus a motion to compel, and the necessity of a solid factual basis when seeking sanctions for failure to preserve electronic evidence.

In this session, the Court's decision on a motion for sanctions highlights the importance of intent to deprive and prejudice under Rule 37(e) for spoliation claims, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to grant the plaintiff's request for an adverse inference instruction. Key takeaways focus on the necessity of clear preservation protocols, especially in trade secrets cases, and emphasize the risks of not reviewing personal devices in cases where theft of information is alleged.

In this session, the Court addresses an appeal of a Magistrate Judge’s decision requiring a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to clarify whether Salesforce report screenshots can be produced, despite the defendant's earlier provision of an Excel export. The discussion highlights the importance of establishing and preserving arguments at the magistrate level, particularly in technical ediscovery matters involving dynamic data systems like Salesforce, to avoid limitations in appellate review under Rule 72.

This session examines a court's handling of an ediscovery dispute concerning the scope and terms of an ESI protocol, focusing on search terms, custodians, and general search obligations. Key takeaways emphasize the importance of a reasonable, iterative approach to search terms tailored to specific document requests, avoiding overbroad language in ESI protocols, and adhering to proportionality in discovery.

This session discusses a court's decision regarding email threading in eDiscovery, requiring defendants to produce individual emails within threads along with metadata, even when using threading tools. The Court also addresses privilege logging, emphasizing that protocols for email threading and privilege log format should be agreed upon in the ESI protocol to prevent discovery disputes and ensure both parties' needs are met effectively.

This session covers a court ruling denying a sanctions motion where the defendant alleged that the plaintiff improperly altered and deleted data on a company laptop after her termination but before litigation. Key takeaways include the Court's emphasis on the duty to preserve arising only when litigation is reasonably anticipated, along with best practices for companies in handling and imaging employee devices during termination.

This session discusses the Court's imposition of a default judgment against a defendant who repeatedly failed to comply with deposition orders and other court directives in a fraudulent billing case. Key takeaways include the importance of obtaining a motion to compel in order to seek sanctions under Rule 37(b) and ensuring that courts clearly warn parties of potential default judgment as a consequence of non-compliance, especially within the 11th Circuit.

This session covers a securities fraud case where the Court addresses a discovery dispute over search terms and proportionality, ultimately siding with the plaintiffs' broader document request due to a lack of specific evidence from the defendants showing undue burden. Key takeaways highlight the importance of providing detailed sampling and hit reports to argue against broad search terms effectively when objecting based on proportionality.

In this session, the Court imposed severe sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice, against a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case after discovering fabricated evidence, including altered product catalogs and doctored screenshots, designed to mislead the Court. Key takeaways highlight the importance of verifying the authenticity of ESI and the need for expert support when presenting digital evidence, given the ease with which such materials can be manipulated.

In this session, the Court reviewed a motion for sanctions against CEVA Logistics for failing to preserve crucial video evidence related to a workplace discrimination claim, ultimately denying terminating sanctions due to a lack of definitive intent to deprive, despite evidence of prejudice. The decision underscores the challenge of proving intent under Rule 37(e) when inaction, rather than explicit action, results in the loss of potentially pivotal ESI.

This ruling examines a class action case involving allegations of antitrust price-fixing in which the Court partially grants and denies a motion to compel Hormel to produce relevant text messages and devices. The Court's decision explores key ediscovery issues, such as the boundaries of corporate control over data on employees' personal devices under BYOD policies, obligations around text message preservation, and the application of Rule 34 and Rule 45 for subpoena enforcement and discovery.

This session covered a motion to compel concerning three documents the plaintiff attempted to claw back, claiming privilege despite producing them in two separate cases and not asserting privilege until well after disclosure. The Court ruled that the plaintiff waived privilege due to a "reckless" disregard for confidentiality, emphasizing the importance of Rule 502(d) orders for preventing waiver in such situations.

In this session, the Court analyzed whether marital communications privilege was waived after the defendant inadvertently disclosed privileged emails between spouses. Despite a Rule 502(d) order, the Court found that this rule only applies to attorney-client and work product privileges, ultimately concluding that the defendants waived marital privilege due to a lack of reasonable review processes before disclosure.

In this decision, the Court quashed a third party subpoena issued to an IT vendor but ordered the defendants to use an expert to perform specified searches for relevant data that had not been produced, following repeated issues with incomplete discovery responses. While the Court recognized the plaintiff's right to obtain the missing information, it required both parties to share in the costs, citing the need for cooperation in conducting the forensic searches.

In this in-depth ruling, the Court addressed the plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions against Keurig, with a focus on failures in preservation, such as loss of key custodial data, inadequate custodian interviews, and delayed document productions. Through this case, the Court highlights counsel’s duty to oversee preservation efforts, assess IT structures, and collaborate on preservation protocols, underscoring the significance of early discovery planning, especially in complex, large-scale cases.