Li v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2025 WL 2162949 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2025), is the latest in a series of discovery holdings in that lawsuit. I described some of the prior holdings in Li. v. Merck Addresses: Trigger; Spoliation Discovery; and, Document Unitization (Feb. 26, 2025); Court Reviews Document Unitization Dispute […]| E-Discovery LLC
In Lively v. The Skyline Agency LLC, 2025 WL 2532796 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 3, 2025), the court wrote that Ms. Lively subpoenaed a Signal Chat in connection with Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, No. 24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 31, 2024) (the “Lively Action”). Id. at *1. Skyline and Ms. Kalantari withheld certain information. […]| E-Discovery LLC
Yesterday, I posted a blog titled “Discovery on Discovery” Permitted. “Discovery on Discovery” was denied in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 2025 WL 2496307 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2025). Ms. Lively argued that the “Wallace Defendants” should be compelled to produce Signal messages, “including records that demonstrate a conversation took place, even if […]| E-Discovery LLC
“Discovery on Discovery,” sometimes called “satellite discovery,” “discovery about discovery,” or “culpability discovery,” was permitted in Apothio, LLC v. Youngblood, 2025 WL 2495624 (E.D. Ca. Aug. 29, 2025). Plaintiff grew hemp and alleged that County officials improperly destroyed its crop. Plaintiff sought a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; however, Defendants refused. Plaintiff moved to […]| E-Discovery LLC
In an important decision, the Ninth Circuit applied California law and held that “the People,” i.e., State Attorneys General, are generally not deemed to have possession, custody, or control of State agency documents, when they are prosecuting an enforcement action. In Re: People of the State of California v. U.S. District Court […]| E-Discovery LLC
There is a problem when the court writes that it “reminds the Parties … that they are engaged in civil litigation, and the Court urges all involved to conduct themselves accordingly.” Pendleton v. Revature LLC, 2025 WL 2493090, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 11, 2025)(emphasis in original; citation and quotation omitted). It […]| E-Discovery LLC
“Keyword warrants” are search warrants “which force search engines to provide personal information on anyone who may have inputted certain terms….” C. Edano, “Beware What You Google: Fourth Amendment Constitutionality of Keyword Warrants,” 97 Wash.L.Rev. 977, 978 (2022): In October 2020, the Denver Police Department hit a wall. The Department was investigating […]| E-Discovery LLC
Plaintiff’s offensive motion for sanctions in Oakley v. MSG Networks, Inc., 2025 WL 2076080, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2025)(“Oakley II”), was no match for defendants’ earlier request for sanctions in Oakley v. MSG Networks, Inc., 2025 WL 2061665, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2025)(“Oakley I”). In Oak| E-Discovery LLC
Early this century, when I was gaining a reputation as a trial lawyer who understood e-discovery and digital forensics, I was hired to work as the lead computer forensic examiner for plaintiffs in …| Ball in your Court
In this alleged wrongful termination and retaliation case, a “whistleblower” complaint was dismissed and monetary sanctions were also imposed. Pable v. Chicago Transit Authority, __ F. 4th __, 2025 WL 2102202 (7th Cir. Jul. 28, 2025). The appellate court affirmed sanctions against both an attorne| E-Discovery LLC
In Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Genesh, Inc., No. 24-2445-DDC-ADM (D. Kans. Jul. 18, 2025) (“Genesh IV”), after several rulings adverse to Genesh, the court appointed a Special Master to facilitate the plaintiff EEOC’s discovery from the defendant, Genesh, Inc. THE UNDERLYING CLAIMS “Genesh II| E-Discovery LLC
In The Loan Source Inc. v. Newity LLC, 2025 WL 1755230 (D. Del. Jun. 25, 2025), plaintiffs’ request for production number 19 sought documents “sufficient to show Defendants’ efforts to settle a lawsuit….” Their motion to compel was granted over relevance and other objections. The court wrote: “Th| E-Discovery LLC
In Singleton v. Mazhari, 2024 WL 4644644 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2024)(Austin, J.), non-party TEDCO’s blanket privilege and work product objections to a subpoena were denied; however, it lived to fight another day because the denial was without prejudice to file supported objections after a “meet and confe| E-Discovery LLC
In Authentication is key to direct and cross-examination (thedailyrecord.com) (Aug. 22, 2024), my friend Paul Sandler wrote: “It can be said that direct and cross-examination are the central features of the trial, and essential to examinations are the exhibits sought to be introduced in evidence.”| E-Discovery LLC
In Felder v. MGM National Harbor, the court ruled that overwriting video footage after 14 days was not spoliation.| EDRM
In U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Physician Partners, LLC, 2024 WL 2846007 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2024), the court held that a categorical privilege log was insufficient, even after an apparent agreement to that logging process. The role of a privilege log is to “trust, but verify.” In other words, “play,| E-Discovery LLC
Many decisions state that the failure to timely provide an adequate privilege log may result in a waiver of the privilege. However, frequently they hold that there is no waiver on the facts presented.[1] In Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equip., Inc., 2024 WL 1929486 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2024), untim| E-Discovery LLC
In 1968, the movie “Dracula Has Risen from the Grave” was released. Like Dracula, despite being long since buried, boilerplate “general objections” keep popping up in what sometimes looks like the children’s game of “Whac a Mole.” It is difficult to understand why the message about boilerplate “| E-Discovery LLC
In Kyle Rayome v. ABT Electronics, 2024 WL 1435098 (N.D. Ill. 2024), the court wrote that it “would prefer this case not go to the dark place where attorneys on one side demand that the attorneys on the other side provide declarations in which they swear they are telling the truth about complying wi| E-Discovery LLC
In Maryland, “sunshine” statutes such as the Open Meetings Act, Md. Code Ann., Gen’l. Prov. Art. §3-301, et seq., and the Public Information Act, Md. Code Ann., Gen’l. Prov. Art. §4-101, et seq., further the goal of open and transparent government. In State compliance board rules Cassilly’s offic| E-Discovery LLC
In Rullan v. Goden, 2024 WL 1191600 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2024), the Hon. J. Mark Coulson construed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 motion to quash or modify a subpoena, which would have been heard in New York, as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) motion for protective order that was resolved in the District of Maryland. Rullan| E-Discovery LLC
In Smith v. Wormuth, 2024 WL 1012887 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2024), the District Court again denied a spoliation motion as untimely. In the immortal words of Yankee Hall of Famer Yogi Bera: “It’s deja vu all over again.” Smith was an employment dispute arising out of a contentious relationship, with an| E-Discovery LLC
Can a witness authenticate a video if the video contains images that the witness did not see? In Md. Supreme Court to rule on Baltimore criminal case involving video authentication - Maryland Daily Record (thedailyrecord.com) (Feb. 22, 2024), Rachel Konieczny reported on a novel and important authe| E-Discovery LLC
“ESI Protocols” are discussed in judicial opinions, articles, webinars, and blogs. They are flexible and useful; however, they may not meet all of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). After a Rule 26(f) conference, that Rule requires a “report” with a “discovery plan” that contains information| E-Discovery LLC