Header graphic for print
Electronic Discovery Law Blog Legal issues, news, and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Monthly Archives: September 2012

On Remand, Court Finds Rambus Committed Spoliation, Will Adjust Royalty Rate as Sanction


Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., No. C-00-20905 RMW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) As has been previously discussed on this blog (here), two federal courts analyzing nearly identical facts came to differing conclusions regarding whether a party to both litigations had committed spoliation by destroying documents pursuant to a newly adopted document retention policy. … Continue Reading

Federal Trade Commission Issues Final Changes to Agency Procedure

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it has issued “final changes to agency procedure that will streamline the FTC’s investigatory process, make updates to keep pace with electronic evidence discovery, and provide more detail on how the agency evaluates allegations of misconduct by attorneys practicing before the Commission.”  Among the changes highlighted in… Continue Reading

Facing Fines for Contempt, Twitter Produces Defendant’s Tweets

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES

People v. Harris, No. 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2012) As was previously discussed on this blog (here, here, and here), Twitter, Inc. was recently ordered by New York Judge Matthew Sciarrino to produce both “content” and “non-content” information (including the text of Tweets) associated with the account of criminal defendant Malcolm Harris.  Mr. Harris and others… Continue Reading

Court Finds Broad Requests for Social Media Content Fail to Uphold Rule 34(b)(1)(A)’s “Reasonable Particularity” Requirement, Denies Motion to Compel (in part)


Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 3939063 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012)

In this case the court addressed Defendant’s request for broad discovery of the content of Plaintiff’s social networking sites for the purpose of “test[ing] Plaintiff’s claims about her emotional and mental state.” Because three of the four categories of information sought by Defendant failed Rule 34(b)(1)(A)’s “reasonable particularity” requirement, the court largely denied Defendant’s motion to compel.

Inadvertent Production Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege as to 347 Pages of Emails


Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-116, 2012 WL 3731483 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2012) In this case, the court held that privilege had been waived as to 347 pages of inadvertently produced emails where, among other things, Defendant failed to establish the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent the disclosure and… Continue Reading

Court Sees “No Principled Reason to Articulate Different Standards for the Discoverability of Communications through Email, Text Message, or Social Media Platforms.”


Robinson v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00127-PK (D. Or. Aug. 29, 2012)

Here, Defendant sought to compel production of discovery in several categories including “all social media content involving [Plaintiff] since July 1, 2008″ that revealed or related to Plaintiff’s “‘emotion, feeling, or mental state,’ to ‘events that could be reasonably expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state,’ or to allegations in [Plaintiff’s] complaint.”

Addressing the categories requested, the court indicated that it saw “no principled reason to articulate different standards for the discoverability of communications through email, text message, or social media platforms.”