Key Discovery Points: Do Your Best to Avoid Discovery Shenanigans!
eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) is called the “stop and think” rule. In Grullon v. Lewis, 2025 WL 1693425 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2025), the court found a violation of that rule....more
I have said it before. I will say it again. The biggest mistake you can make for your business is choosing #biglaw to represent you in a TCPA class action. These guys keep getting smoked. Over and over again. Here is the...more
Recent amendments to the federal rules governing pretrial discovery encourage courts to be more aggressive in squelching wasteful discovery practices. Litigators should be mindful that judges are increasingly taking the rules...more
Disputes related to the relevance and accessibility of the data are one of the most common types of disputes regarding mobile devices. Another common type of dispute is typical with all sources of electronically stored...more
Magistrate Judge Scott Hardy delivers a masterclass on what the meet-and-confer requirement really means in federal litigation—and the serious consequences of failing to cooperate in discovery. In this riveting breakdown of...more
If you’ve been around the ediscovery space long enough, you’ve likely heard the term “drive-by meet and confer.” It’s what happens when counsel shows up to a Rule 26(f) conference unprepared, without the necessary knowledge...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published September 25, 2024, and EDRM is grateful to Tom Paskowitz and Robert Keeling of our Trusted Partner, Sidley, for permission to republish. The opinions and positions are those...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published April 17, 2024 and EDRM is grateful to Tom Paskowitz and Robert Keeling of our Trusted Partner, Sidley, for permission to republish. The opinions and positions are those of the...more
On April 20, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a comprehensive opinion concerning the appropriate level of sanctions for discovery misconduct. ...more
As 2023 begins it is time once again to reflect on the most interesting eDiscovery cases from last year. Trends are always evolving in this dynamic space and eDiscovery professionals cannot afford to snooze on this review....more
In Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC v. BIA Capital Management, LLC, Gregory V. Moeller, Growthworks, LLC, Michael Harradon, and Jon Moeller, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a default...more
This is the second in a series of posts evaluating the results of Exterro and Duke/EDRM’s 2019 survey of Federal district court and magistrate judges. With information from over 250 judges, the survey data offers a rich trove...more
Insight into where e-discovery, information governance cybersecurity, and digital transformation are heading – who is doing what now or in the future, what works and what doesn’t, and what people wish they could do but can’t...more
...For those of us who practice regularly in the ediscovery realm, the December 1, 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e) was a much needed game-changer. In simple terms, amended Rule 37(e) eliminated the risk of the severest sanctions...more
In Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sanctioned a defense lawyer who “inexcusabl[y]” relied on outdated case law and pre-2015 amendments to...more
I was recently reminded that it has been over a year since my last ESI-related blog. My excuse is that I wanted to allow the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing ESI to percolate before writing on the...more