Tag: Format Of Production

1
Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)
2
Carrington v Graden, (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
3
US EEOC v The George Washington University (D.D.C. 2020)
4
Vaks v. Quinlan, et al. (District of Massachusetts, 2020)
5
Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)
6
Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)
7
In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)
8
NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)
9
10
Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)

Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent defendant from obtaining ESI from five different social media platforms they were active on. The court found that while a plaintiff’s social media postings could be relevant to a claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages, some caution was necessary, such that a “deeper dive” into social media postings may be justified only in cases involving “severe and specific emotional distress” allegations. Since plaintiff alleged “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct, the discovery must be narrowed as follows: “specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress in connection with the incidents described in their Complaint,” i.e., diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of distress, treatment regimens and conversations regarding same; time frame limited from date contained in complaint of onset of difficulties to the date of filing of complaint; production limited to information found in a typical download of data from plaintiffs’ own accounts and plaintiffs “need not engage in extraordinary efforts in obtaining responsive information.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Case Summary

Carrington v Graden, (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was discovered to have fabricated emails. Court awarded over $500,000 in damages to Defendant.

Nature of Case: antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Keywords: sanctions,m fabricated evidence

View Case Opinion

US EEOC v The George Washington University (D.D.C. 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant was ordered to produce non-privileged emails responsive to RFP’s. Linear reivew proposed by Defendant wasn’t necessary and other paths existed. Concerns that potential production of privileged information was not enough to justify withholding. Defendant claimed a document by document review was needed, but court believed claw back provisions would be sufficient.

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Keywords: review process, 502, privilege

View Case Opinion

Vaks v. Quinlan, et al. (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Key Insight: plaintiff violated the protective order by filing a pleading attaching confidential documents

Nature of Case: employment discrimintation

Electronic Data Involved: confidential documents protected under the protective order

Keywords: protective order, confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Key Insight: enhancement of protective order to ensure heightened confidentiality of one document.

Nature of Case: breach of contract and false and misleading statements

Electronic Data Involved: confidentiality of proprietary aggregate data product

Keywords: protective order, heightened confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced

Nature of Case: bad faith and fraudulent banking

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery responses, voicemails, loan documents, loan history, and communications

Keywords: fraud, trade secrets, incomplete responses, bad faith

View Case Opinion

In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)

Key Insight: dispute over search terms meant to identify documents

Nature of Case: environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: all discovery, search term protocol

Keywords: search term protocol, predictive coding, technology assisted review,

View Case Opinion

NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)

Key Insight: who bears the burden of paying for translation of foreign language documents

Nature of Case: unfair competition, false advertising, defamation, false light, trade libel, and tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: foreign language documents

Keywords: foreign language, translation, machine translation, burden to pay

View Case Opinion

Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)

Key Insight: whether a request for a specific format is an undue burden

Nature of Case:

Electronic Data Involved: documents produced in TIFF format versus native format

Keywords: undue burden, TIFF, native, cybersecurity

Identified State Rule(s): 214(b)

View Case Opinion

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