- Page 1 and 2:
Electronic Discovery and Computer F
- Page 3 and 4:
Florida ...........................
- Page 5 and 6:
protocol. The search protocol allow
- Page 7 and 8:
Finally, the court expressed disple
- Page 9 and 10:
should rely on IT professionals to
- Page 11 and 12:
to compel, the plaintiff sought pro
- Page 13 and 14:
had been withheld, and if e-mails w
- Page 15 and 16:
the defendants continued to destroy
- Page 17 and 18:
ordering recovery and production of
- Page 19 and 20:
evidence supporting this contention
- Page 21 and 22:
ehavior as a direct contradiction o
- Page 23 and 24:
the effort required to conduct a pr
- Page 25 and 26:
defendant’s motion to dismiss was
- Page 27 and 28:
under Rule 803(6) of the Federal Ru
- Page 29 and 30:
pay judgment in favor of the plaint
- Page 31 and 32:
equally all costs associated with h
- Page 33 and 34:
subpoena would not “prejudice the
- Page 35 and 36:
stopped the automatic deletion of e
- Page 37 and 38:
far produced refuted an inference o
- Page 39 and 40:
commentary that “privacy is no lo
- Page 41 and 42:
documents since resorting to the Ha
- Page 43 and 44:
� Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.co
- Page 45 and 46:
expense of production. The court he
- Page 47 and 48:
substantive. Rejecting the SEC’s
- Page 49 and 50:
claimed these requests raised user
- Page 51 and 52:
efused to issue adverse jury instru
- Page 53 and 54:
evidence would have been favorable
- Page 55 and 56:
failed to issue a proper litigation
- Page 57 and 58:
tapes were meant only for disaster
- Page 59 and 60:
cost and time considerations requir
- Page 61 and 62:
defendant’s investment officer wa
- Page 63 and 64:
Aug. 22, 2003). Stating the order w
- Page 65 and 66:
which the court issued severe sanct
- Page 67 and 68:
ordered a computer forensics examin
- Page 69 and 70:
evidence, and/or failed to make rea
- Page 71 and 72:
information from its computer netwo
- Page 73 and 74:
production was incomplete, and move
- Page 75 and 76:
falsely claimed to have been raped
- Page 77 and 78:
� State v. Voorheis, 2004 WL 2581
- Page 79 and 80:
sanctions were disproportionate and
- Page 81 and 82:
the defendants were responsible for
- Page 83 and 84:
was not equitable to force the defe
- Page 85 and 86:
choose not to heed the court’s or
- Page 87 and 88:
magistrate judge improperly minimiz
- Page 89 and 90:
appropriate. The court refused to m
- Page 91 and 92:
plaintiffs waived any privilege cla
- Page 93 and 94:
defendants failed to preserve and d
- Page 95 and 96:
portions of the plaintiff’s Faceb
- Page 97 and 98:
court denied sanctions, but issued
- Page 99 and 100:
equire the non-party to allow the p
- Page 101 and 102:
server. The court also granted the
- Page 103 and 104:
preserve the computer’s memory .
- Page 105 and 106:
� Itzenson v. Hartford Life and A
- Page 107 and 108:
� Eckhardt v. Bank of America, 20
- Page 109 and 110:
� Bank of Amer. Corp. v. SR Int
- Page 111 and 112:
� Morris v. Metals USA, 2011 WL 9
- Page 113 and 114:
did not address the employer’s ab
- Page 115 and 116:
� Mezu v. Morgan State Univ., 201
- Page 117 and 118:
any such information was irrelevant
- Page 119 and 120:
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions
- Page 121 and 122:
at Dulles airport, the defendants f
- Page 123 and 124:
documents in a manner that was resp
- Page 125 and 126:
“destroyed some documents because
- Page 127 and 128:
“would be even more reliable than
- Page 129 and 130:
defendant’s withholding of respon
- Page 131 and 132:
when it was reasonably anticipated.
- Page 133 and 134:
Mississippi � PIC Grp., Inc. v. L
- Page 135 and 136:
he allegedly sent to the victim. Th
- Page 137 and 138:
absent a motion to compel. The cour
- Page 139 and 140:
disclosure of the hard drive to the
- Page 141 and 142:
to all payment histories of account
- Page 143 and 144:
aware that a party in litigation mu
- Page 145 and 146:
not clear enough to warrant enforce
- Page 147 and 148:
ecause the computer expert testifie
- Page 149 and 150:
database contained proprietary info
- Page 151 and 152:
should have provided the substance
- Page 153 and 154:
protective relief (including cost s
- Page 155 and 156:
drive from a vital computer in the
- Page 157 and 158:
preserve ‘every shred of paper, e
- Page 159 and 160:
defendant plainly manifested an exp
- Page 161 and 162:
argued that it previously produced
- Page 163 and 164:
� United States v. Premera Blue C
- Page 165 and 166:
overwritten] well before th[is] law
- Page 167 and 168:
documents for use in her wrongful d
- Page 169 and 170:
devices that contain relevant elect
- Page 171 and 172:
asserting that the Federal Rules of
- Page 173 and 174:
excuse” for the obvious discovery
- Page 175 and 176:
defendants were not entitled to rec
- Page 177 and 178:
� Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3338
- Page 179 and 180:
documents belonging to the plaintif
- Page 181 and 182:
the filing of the claim, its failur
- Page 183 and 184:
confidential customer lists, quotat
- Page 185 and 186:
defendants at a cost of more than $
- Page 187 and 188:
expert. The court also held that an
- Page 189 and 190:
electronic discovery of the defenda
- Page 191 and 192:
within the plaintiff’s control an
- Page 193 and 194:
� Perfect Barrier LLC v. Woodsmar
- Page 195 and 196:
citing the defendants’ considerab
- Page 197 and 198:
� Kasten v. Doral Dental USA, LLC
- Page 199 and 200:
destruction of evidence indicating
- Page 201 and 202:
incident, her attorney’s letter c
- Page 203 and 204:
question to this court to determine
- Page 205 and 206:
� State v. Levie, 695 N.W.2d 619
- Page 207 and 208:
instruction because the plaintiff i
- Page 209 and 210:
plaintiffs’ alleged failure to me
- Page 211 and 212:
including those from their homes. A
- Page 213 and 214:
litigation was pending, he had not
- Page 215 and 216:
the illegal images onto his compute
- Page 217 and 218:
portions of the e-mail were not pro
- Page 219 and 220:
the resources to oppose the subpoen
- Page 221 and 222:
drive in temporary internet file fo
- Page 223 and 224:
"wireless sniffers" to intercept ap
- Page 225 and 226:
communications sent over her work c
- Page 227 and 228:
court also determined the attorneys
- Page 229 and 230:
� Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc.
- Page 231 and 232:
destroyed relevant electronic docum
- Page 233 and 234:
personal sanctions due to an absenc
- Page 235 and 236:
Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2
- Page 237 and 238:
liable for the destruction of the h
- Page 239 and 240:
investigation where the defendant r
- Page 241 and 242:
motion was denied by the trial cour
- Page 243 and 244:
documents with titles indicating th
- Page 245 and 246:
defendants had received requests to
- Page 247 and 248:
the backup tape data and to bear pr
- Page 249 and 250:
documents included an inaccurate bi
- Page 251 and 252:
� Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles
- Page 253 and 254:
� Peschel v. City of Missoula, 20
- Page 255 and 256:
spoliation. Through forensic analys
- Page 257 and 258:
Phoenix and determined that an elec
- Page 259 and 260:
the defendant was in possession, cu
- Page 261 and 262: Nevertheless, the defendants believ
- Page 263 and 264: one violation of the second order,
- Page 265 and 266: delays and financial harm. In suppo
- Page 267 and 268: plaintiff produced a mere ten e-mai
- Page 269 and 270: defendant’s employees continuousl
- Page 271 and 272: the e-mails and attachments to be r
- Page 273 and 274: elating to any ex parte communicati
- Page 275 and 276: “unadulterated fishing expedition
- Page 277 and 278: e-mails establishing the documents
- Page 279 and 280: metadata, the parties agree that th
- Page 281 and 282: expense in restoring and searching
- Page 283 and 284: and create a more organized and und
- Page 285 and 286: � Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC
- Page 287 and 288: � ClearOne Communications, Inc. v
- Page 289 and 290: � Wright v. AmSouth Bancorp, 320
- Page 291 and 292: metadata or searchable text. Follow
- Page 293 and 294: � In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas C
- Page 295 and 296: nature of the destroyed evidence, i
- Page 297 and 298: appropriate because the plaintiffs
- Page 299 and 300: The award stemmed from the court’
- Page 301 and 302: were also overwritten per departmen
- Page 303 and 304: order, the teacher declared the pro
- Page 305 and 306: investigation of the plaintiff’s
- Page 307 and 308: Regarding the defendants’ relevan
- Page 309 and 310: � ABC Home Health Servs. v. IBM C
- Page 311: document preservation order. The re