In Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger denied defendants' request to inspect plaintiff's email account and camera phone for a particular photograph. 

In Beard Research, Inc., et. al. v. Kates, et. al., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 94 (Ct. of Chan. Del. May 29, 2009), Vice Chancellor Parsons denied plaintiffs' request for a default judgment, but granted their motion for an adverse inference instruction and attorney's fees.

In Covad Communications Co., v. Revonet, Inc., 2009 WL 1472345 (D.D.C. May 27, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge John  M. Facciola issued an order permitting plaintiff's expert to make forensic copies and conduct a search of defendant's electronically stored information.  Defendant was ordered to pay the cost of the forensic copies and the cost of searching through the data.

In May v. FedEx Freight Southeast, Inc., et. al., 2009 WL 1605211 (M.D. La. June 8, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine Noland, granted, in part, plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents pursuant to plaintiff's proposed protective order subject to the court's modifications and further ordered the parties to meaningfully meet and confer regarding the accessibility of defendant's email archive system.

Tom Allman recently released his updated "2009 State Rulemaking after the 2006 Federal Amendments", a compendium of e-discovery legislation in state courts.  For a copy, click here. 

On April 23, 2009, the Wisconsin Judicial Council petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to create and amend certain Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure to address the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).

In Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43588 (D. Conn. May 21, 2009), U.S. District Court Judge Janet B. Arterton granted defendants' motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiff's failure to preserve soil samples and electronically stored information associated with the testing of those samples.

In Ford Motor Co., et. al. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42001 (D.N.J. May 18, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Esther Salas, ruling on a number of discovery motions denied defendant's motion to compel plaintiffs to re-produce electronically stored information ("ESI") in its native format. In addition, the court denied defendant's request to run keyword searches against plaintiffs' ESI collection to verify the adequacy of plaintiffs collection efforts.

In Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Penn. May 14, 2009), U.S. District Court Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and further denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions related to the defendant's shredding of documents and failure to halt the auto-delete features of its electronic information systems.

In United States, ex rel., et al.  v. MAXXAM, Inc., et. al., 2009 WL 817264 (N.D. Cal Mar. 27, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero denied plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions for defendants' alleged spoliation of evidence.