Executive Counsel Institute’s e-Discovery for the Corporate Market June 16-17, 2011 Park Hyatt Hotel Chicago K&L Gates Partner Martha Dawson will moderate a discussion entitled “Effective Cost and Risk Containment Steps to Achieve Proportionality” on June 16th at 4:15 PM. To learn more or to register, click here. 6th Annual Solo and Small Firm Conference… Continue Reading
Two federal courts analyzing nearly identical facts came to different conclusions regarding whether a party to both litigations had committed spoliation by destroying relevant documents. Specifically, the courts differed in their determinations of when the duty to preserve arose, which hinged on when litigation was reasonably foreseeable. One court issued significant sanctions and one court issued none. On appeal, the Federal Circuit sought to clarify the analysis of when the duty to preserve was triggered and remanded both cases for further consideration.
Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., No. 2:07-cv-1294, 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011)
Following summary judgment, the Clerk of Court issued his Taxation of Costs which allowed for recovery of defendants’ e-discovery costs. Plaintiffs objected, arguing that such costs were not taxable pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and sought review of the issue. Following careful analysis, the court upheld the determination of the Clerk of Court.
In re Facebook PPC Adver. Litig., No. C09-3043 JF (HRL), 2011 WL 1324516 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) In this case, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel Facebook’s participation in the creation of an ESI Protocol, despite Facebook’s resistance, and ordered that Facebook re-produce ESI in native format. The court also prohibited Facebook’s use… Continue Reading
The second phase of the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, previously scheduled to end this month, has been extended to May 2012, according to the Interim Report on Phase Two. According to the interim report, the decision to extend the program was made “early in Phase Two” to “allow a fuller evaluation of the… Continue Reading
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC, No. 08-CV-561S(F), 2011 WL 1549450 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011)
Relying largely on the holding of Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., defendant argued that plaintiff’s failure to issue a written litigation hold and subsequent failure to produce three allegedly relevant emails allowed for a presumption that relevant evidence was lost, thereby warranting spoliation sanctions. Declining to adopt such a holding, the court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions absent evidence that plaintiff was responsible for the destruction or loss of any relevant evidence.