Social Media Request for Production That Got It Right

Requesting social media relevant to a lawsuit should be done as standard operating procedure now. However, some attorney have a difficult time with narrowing their requests beyond, “Produce your Facebook profile.” Such fishing expeditions are summarily denied. See, Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 ( E.D. Mich. 2012), Salvato v. Miley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81784, 3-4 (D. Fla. 2013) andPotts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38795, at *6-7(M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013).

Here is a case where the requesting party got it right. The Court ordered the producing party to respond to the following request for production:

“[A]ny notes, diaries, logs, journals, letters, electronic mail, text messages, calendars, Facebook postings, tweets, or other social media messages that relate or refer to your employment with the GDRTA, your alleged serious health condition, or your activities on days when you requested FMLA leave.

Wilkinson v. Greater Dayton Reg’l Transit Auth., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64522, 9 (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2014).

http://goo.gl/01J7

tweetMe Please

Image youthpolicy.org

E-record requests get fair price with ruling

By Andrew Maloney
Law Bulletin staff writer

When it comes to providing records, government agencies have flexibility to determine the fees they’ll charge curious citizens or journalists for producing paper copies.

But that’s not the case when the records are in an electronic format, an appeals panel ruled earlier this week.

In an opinion authored by Justice Robert D. McLaren, a unanimous 2nd District Appellate Court ruled Monday that a county assessor could charge no more than the cost of the compact disc the requested records were copied to.

The decision affirmed an earlier ruling by 17th Circuit Judge J. Edward Prochaska.

Rather than charging thousands of dollars pursuant to language in Section 9-20 of the Property Tax Code that allows the office to ask a “reasonable fee” for records, the three-judge panel said the office must abide by the Freedom of Information Act.

http://goo.gl/WwJz0u

Inside eDiscovery Digest – Weekly Top 3

Must see articles for the week of April 7.

3. Here Come the Robot Lawyers - Written by James O’Toole. It’s not often that eDiscovery is highlighted in mainstream media. CNN Moneypublished this article referencing Winston & Strawn eDiscovery evangelist John Rosenthal and harkening the widespread adoption of predictive coding and its effect on the ranks of law school grads.

2. Machine Learning and Law - Written by Harry Surden. Technology is affecting the practice of law and its processes and this recent Washington Law Review article does a “deep dive” into the technology and its uses.

1. Using TAR in International Litigation: Does Predictive Coding Work for Non-English Languages? - 

http://www.insideediscovery.com/my-blog/predictive-coding/

Don’t Call Discovery Over Document Retention Policies Premature After You Admit Destroying Relevant Discovery

A Defendant sought reconsideration of a Court order allowing discovery on their document retention policies and litigation hold strategy on the grounds 1) the order was premature and 2) it was irrelevant and not discoverable. Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45251, 11-14 (D. Okla. 2014).

The Court denied the motion.

The discovery at issue centered on a key player who left the Defendant’s company whose files were accidently destroyed. The Court stated:

Plaintiff is entitled to inquire into the circumstances of the destruction of such relevant files while this litigation is pending, whether defendants took proper precautions, and whether such precautions were actually exercised by defendants’ employees. Thus, clearly a discovery request on defendants’ document retention and litigation hold practices and policies and whether such policies were followed with respect to Ms. Valerio’s hard copy Cactus file is relevant and discoverable.

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/dont-call-discovery-over-document-retention-policies-premature-after-you-admit-destroying-relevant-discovery/

The Mystery Of The Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Short-Lived Model Orders

Nitty Gritty Discovery Requests

Posted on January 29, 2014

US Senior District Judge John Kane took on multiple discovery disputes against a Plaintiff in a wage an hour case. It is an amazing case study of what could be requested in a case.

Requesting Communications Off the Girlfriend’s Computer

The Defendants requested all ESI communications regarding the case, which included the Plaintiff’s girlfriend’s computer.

The Plaintiff objected to information from the Plaintiff’s girlfriend’s computer being searched because the information was irrelevant.

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/nitty-gritty-discovery-requests/

Changing the Federal Rules: Commentary Opens, Advocacy Thrives