Case Law & Court Rules

The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect emails between a company and its unlicensed foreign senior in-house lawyer.   From the Opinion: “If the Plaintiffs are correct that Dutch law applies, the Boonstra communications plainly are not privileged. Although Dutch law affords a ‘legal professional privilege’ to licensed in-house counsel, there is no recognized […]

In this disability discrimination case, the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to release records from her social media accounts. Defendant’s motion to compel is limited to three categories of information: (1) postings about Plaintiff’s emotional and psychological well-being; (2) postings about Plaintiff’s physical damages; and (3) any accounts of the events alleged […]

Indiana Federal Court’s Order Approves Defendant’s Use of Predictive Coding After Keyword Searching Judge Robert Miller Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, issued an order on April 18, 2013 authorizing predictive coding by the defendant despite the fact that the defendant proceeded with e-discovery before the cases were […]

On March 11, 2013, a New York District Court issued an order recognizing TAR as an acceptable search methodology, able to reduce discovery’s costs and burdens. The court rejected a burden argument on the grounds that “[w]ith the advent of software, predictive coding, spreadsheets and similar advances, the time and cost to produce large reams […]

During a discovery dispute defendant [Earl Sheib] was requested to produce several documents. Defendant objected that the cost of production in response to this discovery request, when considered against the claim itself, renders production unduly burdensome. The court sustained defendant’s objection considering that the cost estimate certainly suggests that the email documentation is unduly burdensome […]

On February 1, 2013, a California District Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for more than $2.8 million in fees associated with a “computer assisted, algorithm-driven document review” of almost 12 million records – mostly in the form of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). The court awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and TAR-related costs under […]

In this case, the Northern District of Illinois ruled that – even though litigants become increasingly dependent on vendors to assist with the discovery process – they must still understand, direct and approve the vendors’ activities. In this patent infringement suit, the defendant was found to have control over its China-based supplier and, in particular, […]

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, a Delaware state court judge, ordered sua sponte the parties to use predictive coding and to hire the same e-discovery vendor. In particular, while deciding a motion for summary judgment for the defendants and denying plaintiff’s motion to strike counterclaims, the judge ordered the parties to use predictive coding: “This seems […]

United State Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan ruled on various discovery disputes and wrote in her conclusion: “Since its publication in 2009, more than 100 federal judges have endorsed the Cooperation Proclamation. In an effort to aid courts and counsel, The Sedona Conference has published guides and toolkits to facilitate proportionality and cooperation in discovery. Moreover, […]

July 27, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Hanna Doherty of the Western District of Louisiana entered a case management order outlining a protocol that the parties must follow during discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). The judge ordered and detailed predictive coding methodology the parties must utilize.   The full text is available at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com… Open […]