Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff's motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant's hard drives, including Defendant's POS server, secretaries' computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

Twitter Might “Bug” You if You Want to Retrieve Archive Data – eDiscovery Best Practices

By : Doug Austin

Thanks to the Google Alerts that I set up to send me new stories related to eDiscovery, I found an interesting blog post from an attorney that appears to shed light on an archival bug within Twitter that could affect people who may want to retrieve Twitter archival data for eDiscovery purposes.

Simply Deleting a File Doesn’t Mean It’s Gone – eDiscovery Best Practices

By : Doug Austin

When a file is “deleted” (i.e., actually deleted, not just moved to the Recycle Bin), the data for that file isn’t actually removed from the disk (in most cases). So, where does it go? Let's find out.

eDiscovery in Arbitration Has Become Less…Arbitrary – eDiscovery Trends

By : Doug Austin

When you think of eDiscovery, you typically think of it as it relates to litigation – two sides of a case requesting and producing electronically stored information (ESI) as one means of identifying evidence designed to lead to resolution of a lawsuit. But litigation is just one method for dispute resolution. Another method is arbitration. But, do arbitrators really “get” eDiscovery? Let's see.

Court Rules that Joint Stipulation Supports Plaintiff’s Production of Images Instead of Native Files – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology LLC, California Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in native form because the production format had been agreed upon under the parties’ ESI protocol under the Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by the parties that supported production in “paper, PDF, or TIFF format”.

Twitter Sues for the Right to be More Transparent – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Back in July, we took a look at Twitter’s Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013 (we had previously looked at their very first report here). However, because Twitter is barred by law from disclosing certain details on government surveillance requests, the Transparency Report is not as transparent as Twitter would like. So, on Tuesday, Twitter filed suit against the FBI and the Justice Department, seeking the ability to release more detailed information on government surveillance of Twitter users.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Transparency Reports for Other Companies – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve taken a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, looked at (for the first time) LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report and, yesterday, looked at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports. Today, we will look at Transparency Reports for other companies.

Facebook’s Policies and Government Request Reports – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Two weeks ago, we took a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, then last week (for the first time), we looked at LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report. This week, we’ll take a look at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports.

Court Orders Sharing of Costs for Forensic Examination of Plaintiff’s Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Zeller v. So. Central Emergency Med. Servs. Inc., Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick used the Zubulake seven factor test to rule that the costs for restoring and searching the plaintiff's emails should be shared, up to a maximum contribution by $1,500 by the plaintiff.

LinkedIn’s Transparency Report – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Yesterday, we talked about LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines. Like Twitter and other social media companies, LinkedIn also discloses a semi-annual Transparency Report to inform the public of the frequency and type of government requests the company receives regarding member data. Let’s take a look.

LinkedIn Has Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines Too – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Last week, we discussed recent updates to Twitter’s Law Enforcement policies as well as Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data. Today, let’s take a look at the Privacy Policy and Law Enforcement Guidelines for LinkedIn.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination – eDiscovery Case Law

By : Doug Austin

In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

Twitter Remains Transparent Regarding Government Requests – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

Yesterday, we took an updated look at Twitter to see how it handles private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas) and what has changed since our last look about two years ago. Today, we will take a look at Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013.

Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies Revisited Again – Social Tech eDiscovery

By : Doug Austin

It’s time to take another look at the social media platforms to see how they handle private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas). Let’s start with Twitter.

LitigationWorld Quick Start Guide to Mastering eDiscovery – eDiscovery Best Practices

By : Doug Austin

Sometimes, it seems like we’re going too fast when trying to explain eDiscovery to attorneys. At least it seems that there are a lot of attorneys that don’t understand the simplest basics. Now, a brand new guide is hoping to help change that. Earlier this month, TechnoLawyer published LitigationWorld Quick Start Guide to Mastering Ediscovery, written by Tom O’Connor, who is a nationally recognized consultant in legal technology.

He Sees You When You’re Sleeping — eDiscovery Trends

By : Doug Austin

A recent post in the Law Librarians Blog illustrates not only the different ways in which personal data can be captured, but also the continued growth of devices that might contain that data.

Judge Grimm Shows that Discovery Doesn’t Have to Be…Grim – eDiscovery Best Practices

By : Doug Austin

On the day this blog debuted, we covered one of the most well-known cases related to discovery abuses (Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.), where Maryland District Judge Paul W. Grimm included in his order a provision that the defendant actually be “imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years” if he didn’t pay the plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs to be awarded. Now, Judge Grimm provides a new Discovery Order that sets requirements for attorneys in his court to conduct discovery in a proportional manner.

eDiscovery Daily is Three Years Old!

By : Doug Austin

We’ve always been free, now we are three! It’s hard to believe that it has been three years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. We’re past the “terrible twos” and heading towards pre-school. Before you know it, we’ll be ready to take our driver’s test! Here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.

Blog

Library

Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog

About the Bloggers

Brad Jenkins

Brad Jenkins, President and CEO of CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years of experience leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Doug Austin

Doug Austin, Professional Services Manager for CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years experience providing legal technology consulting and technical project management services to numerous commercial and government clients. Doug has also authored several articles on eDiscovery best practices.

Jane Gennarelli

Jane Gennarelli is a principal of Magellan’s Law Corporation and has been assisting litigators in effectively handling discovery materials for over 30 years. She authored the company’s Best Practices in a Box™ content product and assists firms in applying technology to document handling tasks. She is a known expert and often does webinars and presentations for litigation support professionals around the country. Jane can be reached by email at jane@litigationbestpractices.com.