Eleven people —lawyers and nonlawyers — who helped create the industry. Published by: The American Lawyer, July 29, 2013 Clearly it took a village to define and create today’s electronic discovery industry. Ever since the sector’s early days, marked by the litigation following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a series of lawyers, consultants, archivists,… Continue Reading
DCP Midstream LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., —P.3d—, 2013 WL 3225846 (Colo. June 24, 2013) In this breach of contract case, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the court’s role in managing the scope of discovery under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)—which was amended in 2002 “to conform to its federal counterpart.” The court concluded… Continue Reading
Lazette v. Kulmatycki, —F. Supp. 2d—, 2013 WL 2455937 (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2013) When Plaintiff’s employment ended and she returned her company-issued Blackberry, she believed that she had deleted her personal email account. She was mistaken. Thereafter, her former supervisor, without her knowledge or authorization, proceeded to access and read her personal emails—48,000 of them—during… Continue Reading
PTSI, Inc. v. Haley,—A.3d—, 2013 WL 2285109 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 24, 2013)
Plaintiff sued its former employees after they opened a competing sports training facility. In the course of litigation, Plaintiff sought sanctions for Defendants’ alleged spoliation of ESI, including text messages. The trial court found that “the level of importance and complexity of the issues did not weigh in favor of imposing sanctions and that the deleted material was not relevant or important to its decision” and dismissed the claim for sanctions. On appeal, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the order.
It was reported this week that the Plaintiffs in this case have filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking an answer to the question: “Should a court of appeals review a judge’s denial of a motion to recuse de novo or for an abuse of discretion?” For… Continue Reading
Sekisui Am. Corp. v. Hart, No. 12 Civ. 3479(SAS)(FM), 2013 WL 2951924 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013)
In this case, the court considered Plaintiff’s “at least” negligent deletion of “the entire active email folder of an important witness–perhaps the key witness–at a time when [it] obviously knew that it might commence a lawsuit,” but declined to impose the requested adverse inference–or any sanction–absent a sufficient showing that “relevant information potentially helpful to [the defendants] [wa]s no longer available.”