The Simplified
E-⁠Discovery Case Law Library
A collection of simple, easy to understand analyses and resources on e-⁠discovery case law.

All E-Discovery Cases

How Much Prejudice is Needed to Warrant an Adverse Inference Instruction
Schmidt v. Shifflett
D.N.M. Oct 28, 2019
The plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions under FRCP 37(e) for the defendants "intentionally" destroying his personal mobile phone, leading to failed preservation of relevant data.
Court Uses Inherent Authority Over Rule 37(e) to Grant Spoliation Sanctions
Guarisco v. Boh Brothers Construction
E.D. La. Oct 3, 2019
Even though FRCP 37(e) is supposed to be a catch-all for when spoliation sanctions are warranted, this court sidestepped this rule and used its inherent authority to issue sanctions, making it unclear when and how 37(e) applies.
Party Escapes Sanctions Even With Relevant Data Deleted
Cruz v. G-Star Inc.
S.D.N.Y. Sep 30, 2019
In this case, the 2015 amendments to the FRCP e-discovery rules helped the spoliating party escape sanctions due to when the duty to preserve arises, and FRCP 37(e)’s more stringent standards for imposing e-discovery sanctions.
Parties Escape Spoliation Sanctions Even with a "Woeful Lack of Proactivity"
Wolff v. United Airlines, Inc.
D. Colo. Sep 17, 2019
The two parties in this case escaped spoliation sanctions—even though both parties showed a “woeful lack of proactivity, thoughtfulness or reasonableness in attempting to meet their preservation obligations.”
Intentional Spoliation + Perjury = Case Dismissal
Williams v. American College of Education
E.D. Ill. Sep 16, 2019
If the court finds a party took intentional steps to spoliate data and lied to the court numerous times about how the spoliation occurred, then the court won’t be afraid to issue case dispositive sanctions.
Expensive Production Request Deemed “Costly Fishing Expedition"
Pentel v. Shephard
D. Minn. Aug 8, 2019
In this class-action privacy lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought to compel a non-party to produce information that would showcase what specific private data was improperly accessed by the defendants