In In Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry ruled on the plaintiff’s motion in limine on miscellaneous matters by allowing the defendant to introduce Facebook posts into evidence that related to the plaintiff’s physical capabilities, but not those that related to his employability.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog