In United States v. Sensient Colors, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81951 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider held that the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections were not waived as to the first set of documents inadvertently produced by plaintiff.  However, the privilege and protections were waived as to all subsequent inadvertently produced documents because plaintiff failed to take timely and appropriate steps to rectify the error as required by FRE 502(b)(3).

On August 24, 2009, the Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division released an updated version of "Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations."  Click here for a copy.

In Lips, et. al.  v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., 1 CA-CV-08-0097 (AZ Ct. of Appeals, Div. 1, Dept. B, Aug. 25, 2009) Appellate Court Judge Jon W. Thompson writing for the majority affirmed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claims for intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence against Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation ("SHC").

In Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC., et. al. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2009 WL 2407754 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla Spaulding granted defendants' motion for terminating sanctions against plaintiff ruling that plaintiff Bray & Gillespie Management LLC ("B&G") and its counsel were "serial violators" of the FRCP and the Court's orders to make reasonable efforts to search for responsive documents.

In Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet, Inc., 2009 WL 1873589 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009), District Court Judge Harold Baer granted plaintiffs' motions for terminating sanctions for spoliation of evidence and discovery misconduct.

In Capitol Records, Inc., et. al. v. MP3 Tunes, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73447 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas limited the production of active emails deemed not reasonably accessible due to undue cost or burden and cautioned both parties to be mindful of their responsibility to meaningfully meet and confer.

In Bellinger v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71727 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold denied plaintiff's request for additional discovery finding the burden and expense of further discovery outweighed its potential benefit.

In Wright-Jackson v. HIP Health Plan, 2009 WL 1024244 (S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas Eaton denied plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery of electronically stored information, absent evidence that the documents sought actually existed.

In IN RE WEEKLY HOMES, L.P., 2009 Tex. LEXIS 630 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009) , the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing direct access to a party's hard drives.  The case is the first in which the high court ruled on the Texas e-discovery statutes.

In In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68078 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly ordered a subpoenaed party to produce readily available electronic information and to meet and confer with the subpoena issuer regarding information that may not be reasonably accessible without undue cost or burden.