This case (Heller’s Gas, Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co. of Hannover Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71069 [M.D. Pa. June 1, 2016]), arises from an insurance claim filed by Heller’s Gas Inc. (“Heller”).
A federal court in Utah recently applied the newly amended Rule 37(e) and, in doing so, issued relatively limited sanctions following a finding of spoliation.
Earlier this year, I predicted that 2016 would be a year of increased focus on e-discovery from cloud-based sources and postulated that many organizations would demand better e-discovery solutions and increased cooperation from cloud providers.
A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ordered a former executive to respond to costly and expansive discovery requests in a case where the former executive allegedly set up a competing business in violation of his employment agreement.
The 9th Circuit ruled that Yelp was immune from content under the 1996 Communications Decency Act (DCA) which “immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties.”
In Sunderland v. Suffolk Cty., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77212 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016) Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson granted plaintiff’s motion to compel wherein defendants were ordered to search for and produce certain documents from their personal computers.
A Party May Comply with Rule 34 by Identifying Its Search Parameters As Opposed to Identifying Withheld Documents
According to a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, a party may satisfy its obligations under Rule 34 when—in response a demand for the production of documents—the party states how the party limited its search for responsive documents, but does not specifically identify the documents that have been withheld.
Another Monday, another batch of quick hits from LXBN.
A Plaintiff’s ATM & Cell Phone Records May Be Discoverable When There is a Particularized Showing of Relevance
In Gonzalez v. Allied Concrete Industries, Inc., thirteen construction laborers filed suit in the Eastern District of New York.
The Dallas News reported that a lawsuit was “dismissed based on the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute, meant to allow judges to dismiss frivolous suits filed against people who speak out about a matter of public concern.”