In a mock trial setting to hear arguments from both sides of some common (and maybe a few not-so-common) discovery disputes. We will provide the facts, hear the arguments, render a verdict and discuss the relevant case citations
This episode features a discovery dispute related to tech-savvy parties engaged in discoverable communications that they did not want to be discovered and switched to applications that automatically deleted the communications after it was read or after 24 hours, whichever came first.
This episode features discovery disputes related to a plaintiff allegedly suffering extensive injuries after a fall from a horse, and taking steps to hide social media activity that documents the extent of those injuries. The dispute is over to what extent the production of social media account information is required in discovery.
Discovery disputes related to failure to preserve in litigation involving a regional grocery store chain backfires. Legal hold was issued, but documents are missing…now sanctions are sought. Join us to hear discovery disputes around the following are resolved:
Did defendants fail to issue a timely litigation hold?
Did defendants intentionally destroy material evidence?
Did defendants attempt to conceal or obstruct discovery of any allegation of spoliation of evidence?
Discovery related to non-compete litigation goes awry for a dental tech entrepreneur. He produced documents, clawed them back, then produced those same documents again. Join us to hear how discovery disputes around the following are resolved:
Should the plaintiff be permitted to clawback previously produced documents now identified as privileged pursuant to Rule 502(d)?
Did plaintiff’s privilege review methodology take unfair advantage of the maximum protection provisions of Rule 502(d)?
Should plaintiff adopt other cost-effective screening methodologies for privilege screening and/or be subject to the provisions of Rule 502(b) instead of Rule 502(d)?
After the close of pleadings and amendments thereto, the Defendant also moved to voluntarily dismiss the counterclaim for defamation against the plaintiff, which would likely eliminate the plaintiff’s claim for sanctions related to lost or deleted relevant data. As such, plaintiff now objects to the defendant’s motion for dismissal of the defamation claim against him in order to preserve his motion for various sanctions.
Should the plaintiff be compelled to produce all cell phones, including personal devices, for copy and inspection as requested by the defendant?
Should defendant’s motion to dismiss defamation counterclaim against the plaintiff be granted despite objection to dismissal by the plaintiff?
Schedule a free consultation with your Project Advisor to discuss your case needs.