Tag Archives: Joshua Gilliland

Don’t Challenge Under Rule 34 If You Cannot Explain Why.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, Federal Rules of Discovery, Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Don’t Challenge Under Rule 34 If You Cannot Explain Why.

Tags

, , , , ,

Attack the Form of Production, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/be-specific-if-you-are-going-to-attack-the-form-of-production/

Oh, Rule 34. You are the code section that keeps giving.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i), a party ’must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.’

A Plaintiff brought a motion to compel the opposing party to organize and label their production to correspond to the categories in the Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Things did not go well for the Plaintiff’s motion. . . .

Continue reading →

Privilege Logs.

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Privilege Logs.

Tags

, , , , ,

A Case Study on Privilege Logs, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/a-case-study-on-privilege-logs/

In this post, Mr. Gilliland suggests an Excel format and headings for a privilege log with a reminder to cover the privilege log rule requirements. Here is another basic example in Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DKgo192j0sQfbj5H51gFQZNFbcrQJOxuBaUU3ZzZGBU/preview

-CCE

Privilege logs require more than merely saying a prospectively privileged document is an ‘attorney-client communication.’ This requires litigants to conduct privilege review with far more analysis than simply tagging discovery ‘Attorney Client Privilege’ or ‘Work Product Conduct.’ The case of United States v. State & La. Dep’t of Health & Hospitals highlights the importance of effective discovery review in creating privilege logs. . . .

Continue reading →

How Many Types of Metadata Can You Name?

27 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Diligence, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Metadata, Technology

≈ Comments Off on How Many Types of Metadata Can You Name?

Tags

, , ,

Production of System Metadata, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/production-of-system-metadata/

Have you ever been bit because you ignored metadata? Hands?

The legal profession is embracing technology to the point where it is considered a lawyer’s duty to know it, understand it, and use it. Paralegals and other legal staff, I am talking to you too.

Do you know what metadata is or how many types there are? This post is a good illustration of why all types of metadata should be on your radar. -CCE

A New York state judge confronted the issue of producing system metadata in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff had to have a foot amputated due to post surgical complications. Vargas v Lee (Sup.Ct.) 2015 NY Slip Op 31048(U), ¶¶ 3-5. The case is direct and thoughtful on the issue of system metadata. . . .

Continue reading →

Can Plaintiff Defeat Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Facebook Evidence?

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Evidence, Rule 403, Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Can Plaintiff Defeat Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Facebook Evidence?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Swabbing the Decks of Admissibility, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/koeyrb5

Working as a deckhand can be extremely dangerous. There are plenty of reality TV shows with fishermen, tugboats, and salvage crews to highlight the risks professional mariners face daily.

What is also risky in litigation is posting on social media information that could hurt your case.

In Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., a former deckhand brought motions in limine to limit social media evidence and other testimony in what apparently was a trial over a shipboard injury.

Red Skies in the Morning

The Plaintiff attempted to preclude the Defendant from introducing Facebook posts that showed the Plaintiff could engage in physical activities, despite his claimed injury. Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4350, 1-2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015).

The Defendant sought to introduce Facebook posts that the Plaintiff engaged in ‘painting, landscaping, flooring, going to the gym, undercoating a truck, and going physical.’ Newill, at *2. The Plaintiff further offered his skills as a handyman on social media. Id.

The Court held that the Facebook posts that reflected physical capabilities that were inconsistent with his claimed injury would be allowed at trial. Id. However, if during the trial the Plaintiff felt a social media exhibit was overly embarrassing, the Plaintiff could challenge that specific post under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 at that time. Newill, at *3.

Red Skies at Night

The Defendant had a witness [presumably an expert] who was to testify that the Plaintiff’s Facebook posts ‘probably [were] not giving the employers a good impression,’ was simply speculation and thus not admissible. Newill, at *4. This might have been different if there was some evidence that the connected the Plaintiff’s employment status to his social media posting, but none was offered. Id.

Bow Tie Thoughts

I am an Evidence geek. Love it as much as the Rules of Civil Procedure. The difference is Evidence goes to the heart of a trial: What is admissible? . . . .

Continue reading →

Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

11 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Legal Technology, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Don’t Stipulate to Not Follow the Form of Production Rules, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kxr9gt5

Here is my advice: NEVER agree to a stipulation to produce native files when “it is more practical to do so” and agree to productions in PAPER, PDF’s, or TIFFs. Melian Labs v. Triology LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124343 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 4, 2014).

That is what happened in Melian Labs v. Triology LLC. It reads like a personal Sum of All Fears for anyone who has spent years working with ESI, because the Court denied motions to compel email and spreadsheets in native files with metadata, because of the parties’ Rule 26(f) stipulation. . . .

Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Employment Law, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Requests for Production, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Proportionality Prevents Mirror Imaging of Family Computers, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/osvw3ws

The Defendants in employment litigation sought the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers three years after she had been terminated. The crux of the eDiscovery centered on the former employee forwarding emails from her supervisors email to her personal account, which the Defendants claimed were lost by the Plaintiff. The Court denied the motion to compel. Downs v. Va. Health Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74415, 6-11 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2014).

Judge James G. Welsh did a very nice job of summarizing ESI relevant to a case,proportionality, and the rules for conducting forensic analysis on an opposing party’s hard drive. The Court held the following:

(1) Nothing in the record suggests any willful failure, fault or bad faith by the plaintiff on her discovery obligations that would justify the requested computer forensics examination;

(2) The “mirror-imaging” of the plaintiff’s family computers three years after her termination raises significant issues of confidentiality and privacy;

(3) There was no duty on the part of the plaintiff to preserve her family computers as evidence;

(4) Principles of proportionality direct that the requested discovery is not sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense in this case; and

(5) On the current record that the defendants have failed to justify a broad, and frankly drastic, forensic computer examination of the plaintiff’s two family computers.

Downs, at *9-10, referencing McCurdy Group v. Am. Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 831 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assocs., Inc. v. BBP & Assocs. LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51264, *8 (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2013). . . .

 

In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery

≈ Comments Off on In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Lessons From Drafting Overly Broad Requests, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., bowtielaw blog

http://tinyurl.com/pzykr25

Drafting discovery is an art. While painting in oils or pastels is certainly more colorful than drafting requests in Times New Roman or Ariel, both require thought. And like any masterpiece, drafting a request for production can have its challenges.

A Requesting Party demanded an opposing party produce ‘[a]ll email and text messages sent or received on Mayo email and text messaging accounts.’

The Magistrate Judge found the request to be overly broad. . . .

Skype For Video Depositions?

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Employment Law, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Discovery, Video Deposition

≈ Comments Off on Skype For Video Depositions?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“Stop and Think” About Skype for Depositions, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/another-skyping-judge/

Judge G.R. Smith issued a great reminder that lawyers must ‘stop and think’ when dealing with discovery disputes. This duty is imposed by Rule 26(g) and is ‘an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through Rule 37, and obligates each attorney to stop and think about the legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.’ Hernandez v. Hendrix Produce, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4837 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2014) citing Bottoms v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143251, 2011 WL 6181423 at * 4 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 2011). 

The case at issue requiring lawyers to ‘stop and think’ involved the plaintiffs in a farmworker rights lawsuit. Three of the plaintiffs were in Mexico and unable to return to Georgia for their depositions. The Defendants wanted the depositions to be held in Georgia. . . .

Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Metadata, Native Format, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques, Word

≈ Comments Off on Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Who Knew What When About the Form of Production, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/who-knew-what-when-about-the-form-of-production/

Magistrate Judge William Hussmann put a new spin on form of production analysis in Crissen v. Gupta: What form was discovery in and when was it in that form?

Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

Tags

, , , , ,

Triangulating Discovery Productions, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., BowTie Blog

http://tinyurl.com/key6ugd

 Judge William Orrick summed up a basic truth of eDiscovery: In the age of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), production of all relevant, not privileged and reasonably accessible documents in a company’s custody and control is easier said than done. Banas v. Volcano Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013).