In Vagenos v. LDG Financial Services, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 121490 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009), District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan denied defendant's in limine motion to preclude plaintiff from offering at trial an alleged duplicate recording of an electronically-stored telephone message, but ordered an adverse inference instruction for plaintiff and his counsel's failure to preserve the message.

In Cornwell v. Northern Ohio Surgical Center, ltd., et al., 2009 Ohio 6975 (Ohio App. Dec. 31, 2009), the Ohio Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling permitting plaintiff's experts to make forensic copies of defendants' hard drives.

In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., et. al., 2009 WL 5159761 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2009), District Court Judge Thomas W. Thrash overruled plaintiff's objections to defendants' motion to tax costs related to its e-discovery vendor.

In American Legalnet, Inc. v. Davis, et. al., 2009 WL 4796401 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2009), Magistrate Judge Rosalyn Chapman denied plaintiff's expedited discovery request to inspect and review of certain of defendants' hard drives.

In Debakker v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc., et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116134 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009), District Court Judge Thomas Varlan denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for defendants' failure to preserve medical records and sign-in sheets made in connection with her visit.

In Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 2009 WL 4844422 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009), Magistrate Judge Rosalyn Chapman denied defendant's motion to enforce the inadvertent production "clawback" provision of  a protective order, ruling that defendants had failed to meet their burden that the documents were produced inadvertently.

In Maggette, et. al. v. BL Development Corp., et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116789 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009), Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, but ordered the parties to select a neutral third-party expert in the field of electronic discovery with knowledge of the gaming industry to determine whether defendants met the standards for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence.

In Bensel, et. al. v. Allied Pilots Assoc., et. al., 2009 WL 4884052 (D.N.J.), Senior Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Irenas denied plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions for, among other things, defendants' failure to place timely legal holds on the routine destruction of certain documents and electronic data, including back-up tapes.

In Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co. et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 114893 (N.D. GA Dec. 8, 2009), Senior District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester overruled plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order directing plaintiff's counsel to pay defendants' attorney's fees related to narrowing the scope of plaintiff's electronic discovery requests. 

In Amobi, et. al. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 114270 (D.D.C. December 8, 2009), Magistrate Judge John Facciola, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 502, ruled that defendants waived the work-product protection in a memorandum prepared by counsel due to their inability to sufficiently articulate any reasonable steps they took to prevent the disclosure of the documents.