This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
- a Western District of Missouri decision finding that plaintiff had destroyed discoverable information but ruling that a decision on sanctions was premature and ordering additional discovery on the prejudice issue to determine whether the destroyed material was available through other means
- a District of Vermont decision granting plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel in part after finding that certain documents had not been produced, requiring the parties to meet and confer to resolve several outstanding discovery and search term issues, and ruling that sanctions were not appropriate either for plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer prior to filing the renewed motion to compel or for defendant’s failure to produce documents
- a Northern District of California decision confirming defendant’s claim that certain redacted information in discovery was privileged and not discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1)
- an Eastern District of Michigan order denying plaintiff’s request for expedited document discovery and depositions in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing, finding that the requested discovery was “patently overbroad” and not proportional
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.
Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202.736.8000.