![]() ![]() ![]() In ruling on the motion, Magistrate Judge Harjani first noted that normally a motion to compel would proceed under the standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which provides that “parties are entitled to obtain discovery regarding ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.’ ” Id. This set of requests, Magistrate Judge Harjani noted, “concerns discovery directed toward the information gathering and production process, what this and many other courts refer to as discovery on discovery.” Magistrate Judge Harjani informed Plaintiff that such a request must proceed by motion, resulting in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. After Defendants filed their disclosure, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on Defendants specifying 13 topics, 11 of which were directed at Defendants’ document collection efforts. In discovery, Magistrate Judge Harjani ordered the parties to file separate electronically stored information (ESI) disclosures describing their ESI search process up to that point in the case. ![]() Plaintiff initiated this litigation seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and patent invalidity in response to a letter from Defendants alleging that 15 of Plaintiff’s automotive replacement parts infringed on Defendants’ patents. Harjani addressed the circumstances in which “discovery on discovery” is properly authorized in the federal courts. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois declining to permit discovery into the Defendants’ collection of documents for discovery purposes, where the Plaintiff did not demonstrate a specific and material failure by Defendants to conduct a reasonable inquiry during the discovery process. an opinion from the New York Supreme Court denying a motion to compel text, social media, and LinkedIn messages where the parties had waived their right to request such information in a discovery stipulationġ.District Court for the Southern District of California denying a motion for sanctions against the Plaintiff for failing to preserve evidence on her smartphone, where the Defendants did not move to compel production of the evidence before moving for sanctions and had not carried their burden to demonstrate that the evidence could not be replaced or recovered from another source District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordering the Plaintiff to produce documents found during “elusion” testing on documents that did not hit on the parties’ search terms, where the Plaintiffs’ initial elusion testing was clearly inadequate a decision from a discovery special master in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois declining to permit discovery into the Defendants’ collection of documents for discovery purposes, where the Plaintiff did not demonstrate a specific and material failure by Defendants to conduct a reasonable inquiry during the discovery process This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |