This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
- a Southern District of New York decision ruling that the court’s inherent power to control litigation rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) was the proper basis for granting a motion for spoliation sanctions where the plaintiff intentionally deleted relevant electronically stored information (ESI)
- an Eastern District of California decision granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel production in native format with metadata, including the reproduction of information already produced, where defendant failed to follow the protocol set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) and unilaterally produced in “load file” format
- a District of Utah case denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, criticizing both parties for their lack of cooperation in discovery and finding that the plaintiff had failed to sufficiently narrow its proposed search by offering 72 spelling variations on the “five detailed search terms” ordered by the court
Sidley Austin LLP provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers.
Attorney Advertising—Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603. +1 312 853 7000. Sidley and Sidley Austin refer to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships, as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer.
© Sidley Austin LLP