Surveillance cameras are ubiquitous these days. Whether captured on doorbell cams, car dashboards, in parking garages, or in businesses, video surveillance footage is often requested and highly sought-after by litigants attempting to prove their cases in court. But what happens when the opposing party fails to provide this valuable ESI?
Remember your middle school teacher who would remove a grade letter for each day your paper was late? Maybe that teacher was inspired by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Energy Keepers, Inc v. Hyperblock LLC examines FRCP Rule 37(c)(1) and the timely disclosure of discovery under Rule 26.
I was recently introduced to Irasema Jeffers (whose background includes serving in the United States Marine Corps, running operations for one of the largest companies on Earth, and working in digital marketing, where she served many law firms and legal service providers).
After countless attorneys and paralegals told Sema they are overwhelmed by the depth and breadth of eDiscovery vendors in the marketplace, she set about building a Yelp-like experience. The result is OnCall Discovery.
You would think that by now employees know their cell phones are not, in fact, black boxes where anything goes and "privacy" reigns supreme. You would be wrong.
Spoliation sanctions: two words no in-house counsel or law firm litigator ever wants to hear, but a routinely-deployed threat when a disagreement about the availability of ESI arises.