In Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al., Connecticut Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff 's responses to discovery and ordered the plaintiff to “image its sources of electronically stored information (‘ESI’), including its hard drives and QuickBook files”.
Let’s face it, people make mistakes. However, a new feature from Google may help people who make those mistakes avoid the consequences – if they’re quick to address them.
Rob Robinson’s Complex Discovery site is an excellent resource for discovery and general legal technology articles which we’ve profiled several times before. In the past two years, we have covered his compilations of various eDiscovery market estimates for 2012 to 2017 and for 2013 to 2018. Now, he has released his worldwide eDiscovery software overview for 2014 to 2019.
From time to time, we’ve covered not only Federal eDiscovery rules, but also eDiscovery rules within the states as well. One of the states that has been slow to undertake any eDiscovery rulemaking activity is Colorado. However, on June 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado did publish new Guidelines Addressing the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information as well as a Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet-and-Confer Regarding Electronically Stored Information (ESI).
In HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al., the New York Supreme Court in Albany County ordered a mandatory adverse inference instruction so that the trier of fact could “draw the strongest possible adverse inference from defendants' bad faith and intentional destruction, deletion and failure to produce relevant evidence”. The court also awarded attorney fees, and forwarded a copy of the order regarding Defendant Lange to the New York State Committee on Professional Standards for attorneys.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog