Key Insight: not ordered to reproduce production of documents in native format (with metadata) but only categories specifically requested by plaintiff
Nature of Case: wrongful termination – contract
Electronic Data Involved: email
Keywords: native format
Hello “Proportionality,” Goodbye “Reasonably Calculated”: Reinventing Case Management and Discovery Under the 2015 Civil Rules Amendments
Presented by: the ABA Section of Litigation & Duke Law
Join us in Seattle on April 29, 2016
The most significant changes to discovery and case management practices in more than a decade, the 2015 Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 34 and 37, took effect on December 1, 2015. The American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies are jointly presenting this unprecedented, 18-city series of dialogues, led by national thought leaders and including local judges, magistrates, and top practitioners in each city. The goal: to further the understanding of the case-management techniques that will help courts and litigants realize the Amendments’ full potential to make discovery more targeted, less expensive, and more effective in achieving justice.
Based on local requests, this popular program has been expanded from the original 13-city tour to 18. Each three-hour program features leaders from the Rules amendment process, who walk the audience through the Amendments and their implications for civil litigation. Spirited panel discussions among local District Court Judges, Magistrate Judges, and leading litigators then explore the Amendments’ practical discovery implications and best practices for case management under the amended Rules. Each program’s attendees discuss application of the new rules to a variety of hypothetical cases and leave with a toolbox of techniques for putting the Amendments into practice.
Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., No. 1:14-cv-01734-WTL-DML, 2016 WL 1162553 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016)
In this case, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and ordered that Defendant was prohibited from obtaining the discovery sought from Plaintiff’s shareholder by the at-issue subpoenas. In reaching its conclusion, the court undertook analysis of recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), highlighting the principle of proportionality, and ultimately concluded that Defendant’s subpoenas constituted “discovery run amok” and “fail[ed] the proportionality test under Rule 26(b).”
Key Insight: Concealment and use of electronic evidence improperly obtained by a client.
Nature of Case: Divorce.
Electronic Data Involved: Email, hacked and stolen from the wife’s private email account.
Keywords: Unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships. Stolen evidence.
Identified State Rule(s): 4-4.4(a); 4-8.4(c); 4-3.4(a)
Key Insight: No sanctions when electronically stored information is lost during ordinary course of business.
Nature of Case: Sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: electronically stored information
Keywords: Safe harbor, Rule 37(e), good faith, normal course of business, spoiliation
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.