Archive: October 4, 2016

1
Court Finds “Rather Broad” Request to be Proportional Upon Factor-by-Factor Analysis
2
Washington v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 15-cv-00471-VC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)

Court Finds “Rather Broad” Request to be Proportional Upon Factor-by-Factor Analysis

First Niagara Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Folino, —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4247654 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016)

In this case, the court addressed the parties’ disagreement regarding a proper scope of discovery and Plaintiff’s related motion to compel the search of Defendant’s electronic devices, to be conducted by an independent e-Discovery vendor utilizing search terms proposed by the plaintiff.  Upon finding the requested information relevant and following consideration of each of the proportionality factors identified in recently amended Rule 26(b)(1), the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

Read More

Washington v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 15-cv-00471-VC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)

Key Insight: Sanctions for delays caused by bad faith reliance on a vendor for a small production.

Nature of Case: discovery delays

Electronic Data Involved: archived e-mail

Keywords: discovery delay, discovery vendor, small production, bad faith

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.