Tag: Other Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure and/or Evidence

1
Rich v. Butowsky (D.D.C., 2020)
2
Livingston v. City of Chicago (Northern District of Illinois, 2020)
3
Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC (3rd Circuit, 2020)
4
Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)
5
Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)
6
Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)
7
Slingerland v. Crisp Marketing, LLC (Southern District of Florida, 2020)
8
Dorfman v. Albertsons LLC (district of Idaho, 2020)
9
Healthplan Serv., Inc. v. Dixit, et al (M.D. Florida, 2019)
10
United States v. Holmes, et al (N.D. Cal., 2019)

Rich v. Butowsky (D.D.C., 2020)

Key Insight: A rule 45 motion to quash subpoenas on electronic subpoenas for electronic identities of anonymous users uses the 2themart.com test and are very fact specific

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: User account information

Keywords: Murder, twitter, first amendment, motion to quash, subpoena, defamation

Livingston v. City of Chicago (Northern District of Illinois, 2020)

Key Insight: A responding party is best suited to determine the method of review and using TAR to pre-cull documents from review is an acceptable methodology

Nature of Case: Hiring discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Keywords: Chicago, fire department, technology assisted review, TAR

View Case Opinion

Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC (3rd Circuit, 2020)

Key Insight: defendant argued that it had no obligation to respond to timely discovery requests because the due date of the discovery was after the discovery deadline.

Nature of Case: telemarketing violation

Electronic Data Involved: requests for admission

Keywords: discovery deadline, requests for admission

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

Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)

Key Insight: argue that those requests and subpoenas are overly broad

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident negligence, personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: medical bills, records, and data for treatment received over a year before incident pertaining to rate of reimbursement

Keywords: subpoena, provider billing structure, medical billing and records, overly broad and burdensome

View Case Opinion

Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was made aware that he had to preserve his phone records and text records and than failed to do so

Nature of Case: personal injury and liability

Electronic Data Involved: plaintiff’s cell phone and text messages

Keywords: spoliation, text messages, phone records, cell phone, preservation

View Case Opinion

Slingerland v. Crisp Marketing, LLC (Southern District of Florida, 2020)

Key Insight: discovery requests overbroad

Nature of Case: telephone consumer protection act

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery

Keywords: scope of relevant discovery, class action

View Case Opinion

Dorfman v. Albertsons LLC (district of Idaho, 2020)

Key Insight: if a motion to deny a class certification can be granted before discovery

Nature of Case: telemarketing, telephone consumer protection act

Electronic Data Involved: discovery showing common questions for a class certification

Keywords: class certification, rule 23

View Case Opinion

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