Case of the Week

In this continuation of a prior discussion, the Court evaluated Keurig's sanctions motion against plaintiffs TreeHouse and JBR, focusing on alleged spoliation and failure to preserve key evidence. The Court examined preservation timelines, the effectiveness of legal hold efforts, and the duty to preserve, ultimately denying sanctions due to adequate preservation efforts and lack of demonstrated prejudice to Keurig.

This decision discusses a sanctions ruling where 50 North was penalized for failing to comply with court orders to conduct a responsiveness review on an 800,000-page production, leading to a "document dump" of mostly irrelevant information. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Raymond James, granting its motion for sanctions and ordering a detailed cost declaration to recover review expenses, emphasizing the importance of clarity in review obligations under Rule 34.

The Court awarded Raymond James $242,262 in costs as sanctions under Rule 37(b) for having to manually review over 283,000 documents in response to 50 North's document dump that failed to meet court-ordered responsiveness requirements. This case highlights the importance of conducting thorough responsiveness reviews in discovery and demonstrates the level of detail and evidence needed to both support a cost recovery request and challenge such recovery effectively.

In this decision, the Court holds Twitter and Elon Musk to a prior agreement limiting Slack message custodians to eight rather than 42, citing the need for clarity and good faith in expedited ediscovery processes. The ruling emphasizes that parties must rely on one another's proposals in fast-moving cases, underscoring the importance of precise language when negotiating the scope of discovery.

In a trade secret misappropriation case, the Court imposed default judgment against the defendants for repeatedly failing to comply with court orders to produce relevant Slack and Google data, noting deliberate evasion and misrepresentation. The case highlights the risks of inadequate ESI management and the necessity of using reliable ediscovery tools and processes for proper data collection, search, and production.

The Court denied Twitter’s motion to compel Elon Musk’s emails from his SpaceX and Tesla accounts, determining that Musk had a reasonable expectation of privacy despite company policies allowing access, citing his unique executive position and affidavits affirming restricted email access. This decision raises important considerations about executives’ use of company email for personal matters, especially where policies apply differently to high-ranking individuals.

In an expedited dispute over Twitter’s privilege log, Elon Musk’s team sought a blanket waiver of Twitter’s attorney-client privilege for 7,200 documents or production of certain email communications without attorneys present, but the Court denied the blanket waiver request, finding Twitter’s privilege assertions justified. The Court scheduled a further hearing and potential in camera review for additional privilege challenges, highlighting the importance of early and detailed privilege log practices in large-scale ediscovery.

This decision covers the Court’s approval of $2.4 million in fees awarded as sanctions against defendants and their former counsel, emphasizing that fees billed and paid by the client are presumed reasonable. The Court denied requests for additional “rare and exceptional” circumstances fees, reinforcing the importance of documenting time spent on recoverable work and the substantial risks of repeated discovery violations.

In this decision, the Court imposed a mandatory adverse inference instruction as a sanction for defendants' intentional deletion of Slack communications, which they knew were critical to the case and failed to preserve despite clear obligations to do so. The ruling highlights the serious repercussions of spoliation under Rule 37(e)(2) and the importance of timely preservation and communication with legal counsel about potential litigation.

This discussion covers a court decision denying a motion to compel plaintiffs to produce noise exposure data from smartphones and smartwatches, finding the data unreliable and not proportional to the issues at hand. The Court emphasized that limitations in the data’s accuracy and relevance, along with privacy concerns and collection burdens, outweighed its potential value in supporting claims of hearing injury.

In this decision, the Special Master denied the defendants' motion to apply technology assisted review (TAR) after culling documents with search terms, citing insufficient evidence of cost savings, a lack of cooperation between parties, and inconsistency in case law regarding TAR's application after search terms. The ruling underscores the importance of early planning, cooperation, and thorough cost-benefit analysis when negotiating and implementing review protocols in complex ediscovery cases.

The Court upheld the Magistrate Judge's decision requiring the plaintiff to produce their daughter’s Instagram account in native format, citing that production in PDF format prevented the defendant from accessing necessary video content and metadata. This ruling underscores the importance of producing social media evidence in formats that preserve usability and context, especially as courts increasingly favor native format production to support evidentiary integrity and trial presentation.

In this decision, the Court granted Healthy Paws' motion to compel, ordering plaintiffs to produce emails in accordance with the agreed-upon ESI protocol, including metadata and load files, as well as to negotiate search terms cooperatively. The Court found plaintiffs’ self-collection methods insufficient and emphasized that parties are bound by ESI protocols they agree to, highlighting the necessity for careful planning and cost management in ediscovery compliance.

This case covers the application of technology assisted review (TAR) and search terms in large-scale antitrust litigation, analyzing whether defendants’ review process met discovery obligations and the proportionality requirements of Rule 26. The Special Master ultimately held that the defendants needed to continue reviewing documents until responsiveness rates fell below 10% in the final TAR batches, underscoring the importance of balancing thorough discovery practices with proportionality based on case-specific needs.

In this case, Magistrate Judge Robertson ordered FedEx to produce scanner data for all 450+ opt-in plaintiffs in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action, finding that the information was relevant, not duplicative, and that FedEx’s proportionality objections were insufficient without specific evidence of burden. The decision underscores the importance of fully understanding structured data within proprietary systems and exploring efficient production options to avoid unnecessary motion practice and costs.

In this decision, Judge Robbenhaar clarifies that under Rule 37 bad faith is not required for a party to pay costs if it loses a motion to compel, emphasizing that cost-shifting is intended to apply when one party loses a discovery dispute. The ruling highlights the importance of transparency and proactive management of discovery obligations to avoid unnecessary and costly motion practice.

In this decision, District Judge Schreier denied a motion to compel additional search terms after finding that the associated costs rendered the data inaccessible under Rule 26(b)(2)(B), focusing on cost rather than proportionality. The ruling emphasizes the need for detailed justification and relevance when requesting further document searches, especially in high-cost ediscovery contexts.

In this decision, Judge Johnston issued sanctions against DR Distributors and its counsel for violating a previous court order by introducing expert opinions based on documents disclosed after a set cutoff date. The court struck the expert report, imposed a $6,000 fine payable to the court, and issued a stern warning that continued violations would incur further sanctions.

The Court granted a motion to reconsider sanctions based on new evidence that showed intent behind the plaintiff's deletion of emails but ultimately allowed the jury to determine whether an adverse inference should be drawn due to uncertainty over the relevance of the deleted data. The ruling underscores the need to show both intent and potential harm to the opposing party from lost data when seeking sanctions under Rule 37(e).

This decision provides a detailed overview of Rule 45 compliance for enforcing third party subpoenas, emphasizing the importance of timely objections, relevance, and proportionality in discovery. The ruling underscores that ESI production does not fall under the 100-mile limitation for subpoenas and highlights the necessity of strategic planning when issuing third party subpoenas.

This decision covers a motion to compel the full production of text messages and calendar entries without applying search terms, which was denied by the Court, reinforcing the use of search terms for managing large ESI sets in complex litigation. It highlights the importance of adhering to ESI protocols, considering data source specificity for search terms, and managing metadata for efficient data sorting and review.

This case involves motions for sanctions over the spoliation of text messages related to the 2020 Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) in Seattle, with plaintiffs alleging intentional deletion of critical communications by city officials and defendants alleging similar losses by plaintiffs. The Court found that the city’s deletions were egregious and merited an adverse inference, while the plaintiffs’ losses resulted from reasonable mistakes, underscoring the importance of early, diligent data preservation and the challenges of securing full accountability for lost evidence in complex cases.

This decision involves sanctions against Facebook and their counsel for obstructive discovery practices in a multidistrict litigation related to data privacy, where they withheld critical data and abused privilege claims to delay document production. The Court ultimately imposed $925,000 in sanctions, highlighting the importance of transparency in discovery and the effectiveness of using a Special Master to address complex data issues.

In this 100th episode of the Case of the Week series, Kelly Twigger and guest David Horrigan discuss their top ten takeaways from ediscovery case law, covering issues like technical competence, importance of ESI protocols, preservation requirements, and handling alternative data sources such as Slack and biometrics. They emphasize practical strategies for litigators to strengthen discovery practices and avoid sanctions, providing insights from recent high-profile cases and current data privacy trends.

In an antitrust case between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour, the Court addressed whether professional golfers could be compelled to produce documents from their agents, ruling that under the Ninth Circuit’s broad interpretation of "possession, custody, or control," agents' documents were indeed within players' control. The Court's decision underscores the critical importance of understanding jurisdiction-specific rules on data control and possession when crafting ediscovery strategies, especially for third party documents.