Lubber Inc. v. Optari, LLC, No. 3:11-0042, 2012 WL 899631 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2012) In this case, the court considered defendants’ motion for a protective order to restrict the relevant time frame for additional electronic searches and plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in nine categories. Upon consideration of the issues, the court denied defendants’… Continue Reading
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.) As expected, on March 19, 2012, plaintiffs in this case filed their Reply in Support of Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s February 8, 2012 Discovery Rulings. In it, plaintiffs summarize their arguments as follows: Extrajudicial activities aside, what should… Continue Reading
Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 2012 WL 887593 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2012)
On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s approval of taxable costs related to electronic discovery and remanded with instruction to re-tax in accordance with this opinion. Specifically, the court concluded that the relevant vendors’ charges “would not qualify as fees for ‘exemplification’” and that “of the numerous services the vendors performed, only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved ‘copying’” and were thus recoverable.
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.)
On March 13, 2012, approximately 2 ½ weeks after Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck issued his much-talked about opinion approving “computer-assisted review,” District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. has granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their objections to the ruling.
Signed by Chief District Judge Leonard Davis on February 27, 2012, amendments to the Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas include a [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases similar to an order promulgated by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit late last year. The new [Model] Order is… Continue Reading
In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 2012 WL 360509 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012)
After repeated representations that all responsive documents had been produced, a defendant belatedly discovered and produced an additional 60,000 pages. Upon plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the court found that the defendant “did not conduct a reasonable inquiry” to ensure production of all responsive documents and had run “afoul” of Rule 26(e). Accordingly, the court ordered discovery re-opened and that the defendant pay plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees caused by the defendant’s failure, including the cost of the necessary motions and the extended discovery period.