John Doe Can Remain Anonymous and Not Be Deposed in Pre-Litigation Discovery

John Doe Can Remain Anonymous and Not Be Deposed in Pre-Litigation Discovery

Since the plaintiff did not a file a lawsuit against John Doe, the Texas trial court had no jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to take the deposition of “Trooper,” an anonymous blogger who launched on on-line attack on the CEO of a company who lives in Houston. In the case of In Re John Doe a/k/a “Trooper” on August 29, 2014 the Texas Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the pre-litigation discovery seeking John Doe’s identity is unacceptable in Texas, and the discovery to learn the identity of John Doe can only proceed if a lawsuit is filed.

What is a General Objection?

What is a General Objection?

ANSWER:     A fictional document. A non-existent objection neither based in statutory authority nor found in case law. A statement by a party during the discovery phase that they will neither be held to the Code of Civil Procedure nor the rules of evidence.

Predictive Coding After Keyword Screening!? Don’t Miss the Point of Bridgestone Americas

By | Discovery Advocate | August 21, 2014
Predictive Coding After Keyword Screening!? Don’t Miss the Point of Bridgestone Americas

Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown’s recent order permitting predictive coding in Bridgestone Americas v. International Business Machines Corporation has received a lot of attention because it allowed the use of predictive coding on a population of documents that had already been screened using keywords pursuant to a case management order that did not provide for the use of predictive coding.

Sixth Circuit Addresses Spoliation, Preservation of Back-up Tapes, Affirms Denial of Sanctions

Sixth Circuit Addresses Spoliation, Preservation of Back-up Tapes, Affirms Denial of Sanctions

In this copyright infringement case, the Sixth Circuit considered plaintiff’s arguments that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions related to defendant’s failure to preserve the information on a relevant hard drive and a relevant server and that the magistrate judge (and district court) improperly concluded that defendant’s back-up tapes were not subject to the duty to preserve, pursuant to the analysis set forth in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).