eDiscovery Daily

FEBRUARY 18, 2019

In this employment discrimination case involving claims of sexual harassment, the plaintiff was injured in 2016 in a physical confrontation with her supervisor (who was also the alleged harasser) and the confrontation was recorded on one of defendant’s surveillance cameras. Case Background. I love you!

e-Discovery 43

e-Discovery Computer and Electronics Insurance Education 43

eDiscovery Daily

NOVEMBER 1, 2018

25, 2018) , Indiana Magistrate Judge John E. In this case where the plaintiff sought rescission of a life insurance policy issued to one of the defendants based on her alleged misrepresentations during the application process. In Metlife Inv’rs. Lindsey, No. 2:16-CV-97 (N.D. Case Background.

Metadata 43

Metadata e-Discovery Insurance Education 43

eDiscovery Daily

JANUARY 9, 2019

And we all thought that Rule 37(e) had the biggest impact from the 2015 Federal Rules changes when maybe it was actually Rule 26(b)(1)! And, we’re also seeing parties identifying privacy as a reason not to comply with discovery requests (including at least one case where even the courts couldn’t agree on the outcome). LLC, et al.

e-Discovery 48

e-Discovery Metadata Insurance Privacy 48

eDiscovery Daily

JANUARY 9, 2018

Sweet, among other rulings, issued an adverse inference sanction against one of the defendants for its failure to preserve text messages in the possession of a non-party, finding that defendant had control of the non-party’s text messages, given that he was contracted by the defendant and provided documents and gave a deposition during discovery.

e-Discovery 39

e-Discovery Computer and Electronics Communications Cloud 39

eDiscovery Daily

DECEMBER 3, 2017

He has also been a great addition to our webinar program, participating with me on several recent webinars, including our webinar last Friday on E-Discovery Day ( Murphy’s eDiscovery Law – How to Keep What Could Go Wrong From Going Wrong ), which was great. Discuss steps to take to insure compliance with the GDPR.

GDPR 44

GDPR IT Personal data Privacy 44

eDiscovery Daily

JANUARY 8, 2020

Since the 2015 Federal Rules changes and changes to Rule 26(b)(1) regarding the scope of discovery, we’re seeing more disputes regarding proportionality vs. relevancy vs. privacy than ever. Discovery Can’t Be Stayed While Motion to Dismiss is Considered, Court Says : In Udeen v. PROPORTIONALITY vs. RELEVANCY vs. PRIVACY. Kiewit Corp.

e-Discovery 45

e-Discovery Privacy Computer and Electronics Insurance 45