Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger

A legal hold system that “works” can still wipe out the evidence you need, and you may not realize it until the sanctions motion lands. We unpack a major Rule 37(e) preservation decision from DDC in United States ex rel. Staggers v. Medtronic that every litigator, legal operations leader, and discovery counsel should study, especially if your company is migrating email or sitting under a long discovery stay. We walk through the timeline problem that drives the whole outcome: a case served in 2016, discovery stayed for years, and an enterprise-scale Enterprise Vault to Microsoft Exchange migration happening in the background under a two-year retention policy. You’ll hear exactly how “dropped holds” and normal retention can quietly delete older ESI while dashboards still report that mailboxes are migrated. Then we split the analysis the way the court does: system-level migration steps can be reasonable under the Sedona Principles, while custodian-by-custodian legal hold timing can still be unreasonable and costly. We also dig into the practical litigation lessons: why deposition testimony is not a substitute for missing ESI, why “replacement” has to be substantially complete, why intent to deprive remains a high bar, and why you must prove prejudice with specific documents rather than generic argument. Finally, we highlight the real financial exposure that too many teams underestimate: multi-bucket fee awards for spoliation investigation, motion practice, and even fees on fees. If you’re responsible for eDiscovery, legal holds, retention policy risk, or managing outside counsel, listen through and pressure-test your preservation plan against this checklist. Subscribe to Meet and Confer, share the episode with a colleague, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

We break down Morgan v V2X, the most detailed federal ruling yet on generative AI, work product protection, and what happens when confidential discovery meets mainstream AI tools. We also track how Morgan fits with Heppner and Gilbarco and why the real fight is shifting toward protective orders, platform contracts, and access to justice. why Morgan v V2X becomes a turning point for AI in civil discovery the work product doctrine under FRCP 26(b)(3) and why it applies to pro se litigants when AI use does not equal waiver and why third-party access is not the whole story why prompts can be opinion work product and outputs may be qualified work product the court’s limits on protection and why tool name disclosure is treated differently a court-built framework for AI language in protective orders and why consumer AI often fails it the practical burden of training prohibitions, third-party flow-down terms, deletion rights, and documentation the emerging enterprise AI advantage and the access to justice gap it creates tactical takeaways on over-designation, tailoring discovery requests, and counseling clients on unsupervised AI use Please share this episode with your friends and colleagues. Subscribe to our blog at Minerva26 to follow all of our case of the week updates. Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

A single analytics export can decide whether your damages story looks like math or guesswork. This week, we take on a spoliation decision out of the Southern District of New York that every litigator handling ESI should read, because the lost evidence is not email or chat logs. It’s Google Analytics website traffic data, the kind your marketing team lives in and your discovery plan might never mention until it’s too late.We unpack PharmacyChecker.com v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and the nightmare scenario behind the sanctions motion: Google’s Universal Analytics gets sunset, an IT employee downloads data without attorney direction, and a 19-month window of granular source-by-source traffic data (Google vs Bing vs others) disappears for good. When a party’s antitrust claims and damages theory depend on proving lost organic search traffic, that missing granularity becomes a hole you can drive expert cross-examination through.From there, we walk step-by-step through Rule 37(e)(1): duty to preserve, “reasonable steps,” whether the ESI can be replaced, and the prejudice finding that caps what a court can do. Judge Resnick’s prejudice analysis is unusually nuanced, and it directly shapes the remedies: no overbroad preclusion, but required caveats that the missing-period numbers are estimates, permission to tell the jury what happened, a potential jury instruction, and a targeted fee award. Along the way, we pull out practical eDiscovery lessons for SaaS preservation, dynamic databases, and meet and confer clarity when someone promises to “refresh the data.”Subscribe to the Meet and Confer podcast, share this with a colleague who handles discovery, and leave a review if these case-driven breakdowns help you stay ahead. What’s one third-party platform in your current matters you would preserve today if you knew access could disappear tomorrow?Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Two federal rulings issued the same week just redrew the map for AI, discovery, and privilege. We break down how Warner v. Gilbarco framed ChatGPT as a drafting tool and shielded a pro se litigant’s prompts and outputs, while U.S. v. Heppner denied privilege where a platform’s privacy policy allowed training and disclosure. The contrast is stark and deeply practical: facts, platform settings, and attorney involvement now drive whether AI-generated content is protected or exposed.We walk through what made the difference in each case—timing under Rule 26, the line between internal thought processes and actual documents, and whether counsel directed the AI work. Then we zoom into the privacy and confidentiality layer: why consumer AI settings can undermine privilege, how enterprise copilots promise stronger safeguards, and where platform policies can make or break your arguments. Along the way, we surface key quotes from the bench, including the “AI is a tool, not a person” framing and the warning that broad waiver theories would gut work product in modern drafting environments.To help teams act now, we share concrete steps: update custodian interviews to capture AI usage; set retention and logging rules for prompts and outputs; choose enterprise configurations that disable training; and document attorney direction when AI assists with strategy. We also flag the unresolved questions—what counts as ESI, how to handle prompt discovery requests, and what duties vendors have to preserve AI interactions—so you can anticipate challenges before they surface in meet-and-confers.If you’re advising clients who touch ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Microsoft Copilot, this conversation is your primer on privilege, confidentiality, and eDiscovery in the age of generative AI. Subscribe, share with your team, and leave a review with your take: should AI-assisted drafts be treated like any other protected work product, or is the risk of disclosure too high without new rules?Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

The dramatic spoliation of evidence case of former NBA star Charles Oakley shows how failing to preserve text messages can severely damage litigation outcomes. Oakley's misrepresentations about his texting habits and phone upgrades led to substantial sanctions in his case against Madison Square Garden.Text messages are primary evidence in most litigation cases and must be preservedCharles Oakley's case against MSG was undermined when AT&T records revealed he sent 800+ texts after the incident despite claiming he "doesn't text much"The court granted an adverse inference instruction after finding Oakley intentionally failed to preserve evidenceMSG's counsel effectively used subpoenas to AT&T and other individuals to prove their sanctions motionThe duty to preserve for plaintiffs may arise before filing the complaint, contrary to this court's findingCourts are increasingly considering sanctions against counsel who fail to ensure client preservationMultiple affordable technologies exist that can preserve mobile device data in just hoursLink to Oakley decisionLink to ModeOne Technologies for Mobile Device CollectionIf you're interested in seeing how Minerva 26 can help you engage in better discovery strategy, please visit us at Minerva26.com.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Telling your client to “preserve their text messages” is not a preservation plan—and a new decision out of the District of Colorado makes that painfully clear.In this episode of Meet and Confer, Kelly Twigger breaks down Peddada v. Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, where a magistrate judge found intentional spoliation after key text messages went missing. Even without a forensic smoking gun, the court inferred intent based on circumstantial evidence, third-party comparisons, and common sense.Kelly walks through what the court did, how Rule 37(e) was applied, and why mobile-device preservation failures create serious credibility and sanctions risk. She also flags a troubling trend: meaningful sanctions being deferred until after summary judgment—raising real questions about whether current remedies actually deter spoliation.Key takeaways include:Why self-directed text preservation is rarely defensibleHow courts infer intent when messages disappearWhat litigators should be doing early to reduce mobile ESI riskWhy waiting on sanctions may be encouraging bad behaviorIf your case involves people, it involves text messages. And if you don’t get in front of that early, you’re building spoliation risk into your case.Case Links:ESI OrderCourt Issued Second OrderPrompted Third OrderJones v. Riot HospitalityUF eDiscovery Conference RegistrationSponsor ModeOne Technologies Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Your chats are now your records. In this episode of Mobile Minutes sponsored by ModeOne Technologies, we dig into why mobile and off-channel messages—texts, WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, and Teams—have moved from “nice-to-have” discovery to core evidence and a core compliance obligation. With new DOJ and FTC guidance and eye-watering SEC penalties, regulators are no longer hinting; they’re spelling out what credible programs must include and how they’ll evaluate your effort, resources, and results.Ruth Hauswirth of Cooley joins Kelly Twigger to translate policy into practice. We break down what changed in 2024, how agencies define off-channel communications, and why “messages are documents” is the standard. Then we get tactical: approved channel lists, BYOD and retention controls that survive scrutiny, legal holds that actually reach phones, and supervised mobile collections that avoid the self-collection trap. We also tackle the messy realities—auto-delete defaults, device upgrades, shadow IT, and the speed regulators and courts now expect when preservation triggers.If you lead litigation, investigations, or compliance, you’ll walk away with a focused playbook: map your chat footprint, upgrade your holds with plain-English steps, run a tabletop for a subpoena or CID, and align legal, IT, HR, and security on a risk-based governance model. For global teams using WhatsApp or WeChat, we discuss harmonizing standards across jurisdictions and when to prohibit tools you cannot preserve. The through-line is simple: content over form, relevance and proportionality, and a documented, defensible program that proves you took this seriously before the knock on the door.If business lives in chats, compliance must live there too. Subscribe, share this with your legal and IT teams, and leave a review with one question you want us to tackle next.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Everyone’s finally past the first question on hyperlinked documents: yes, they’re discoverable. That debate is over.The real fight now is sharper—and it’s what makes the Carvana decision a must-read: when does a party have to produce a contemporaneous (point-in-time) version of a hyperlinked document, and what does the requesting party have to show to get that relief? Because in the cloud, the “attachment” is living. If you produce the file as it exists today, you may be producing something that did not exist when the email was sent. And courts are increasingly unwilling to let the timeline get rewritten—whether intentionally or not.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Think your AI prompts disappear when you hit delete? Not when litigation lands. We unpack the OpenAI copyright MDL to show how courts are turning ChatGPT conversation logs into core electronic evidence—preserved, sampled, de-identified, and produced under a protective order. The result is a clear, repeatable playbook for handling AI data at scale without letting privacy swallow relevance.We walk through the emergency preservation orders that halted deletion across consumer, enterprise, and API logs, then explain why the parties settled on a 20 million chat sample and how de-identification pipelines strip direct identifiers while keeping prompts and outputs analyzable. Along the way, we tackle the big question of relevance: why usage patterns and non-infringing outputs matter for fair use factor four, market harm, and damages, and why a search-term-only approach can’t answer merits questions in a generative AI case.You’ll hear the strategic pivots that shaped the fight—OpenAI’s attempt to narrow production after de-identifying the full sample, the court’s treatment of privacy as part of burden rather than a veto, and the denial of a stay that kept production on track. Then we distill three takeaways for legal teams: prompts are now squarely within the duty to preserve, the sample you propose will likely bind you later, and privacy is a dial you engineer through sampling, de-identification, and AEO protections.Whether your organization uses ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, or in-house LLMs, this episode maps the practical steps: identify where logs live, understand tenant controls and exports, plan system-based discovery alongside key custodian evidence, and build credibility with numbers and workflows you can defend. Subscribe, share with your litigation and privacy teams, and leave a review telling us: how are you preparing your AI preserves and productions for 2026?Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

We unpack how hyperlinked files and “modern attachments” change discovery, from Google Vault’s updates to Microsoft’s gaps, and how to defensibly restore parent–child context without breaking authenticity. Arman Gungor shares practical workflows for version selection, preservation, and rapid email fraud detection.• Why links function as attachments in context• Current limits of Google Vault and Microsoft Purview• Restoring families without altering source emails• Choosing current vs contemporaneous versions• Handling folder links and recursion at scale• Preservation gaps across email and cloud storage• Access, “shared with me,” and control issues• Sampling approaches to manage burden• MIME vs PST, signatures, and authenticity checks• Using FEI to score and triage suspect emails• Early planning for legal holds and server metadata• Concrete questions to ask at meet and conferTo see how Minerva26 can become the strategy hub for your discovery decisions, head to Minerva26.com and schedule a strategy session or request a demo.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Kelly Twigger, our Founder and CEO, just marked five years of weekly case analysis. This retrospective highlights what five key rulings from the past five years teach about discovery in practice and where litigators are being tested now.This week’s episode isn’t a victory lap. It’s a grounded look at how ESI has reshaped litigation, what the decisions actually say, how judges are reasoning, and where counsel are getting tripped up. Below is a narrative recap of the five discussion areas Kelly surfaces, each anchored to a representative ruling. For the complete context, listen to the episode or read the transcript.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

What if the most important part of your email evidence is the message you didn’t receive? We dig into a timely antitrust class action centered on formulary placement for a multiple sclerosis drug and unpack a pivotal ruling on whether parties must produce non-inclusive emails within threads. The debate sounds technical—threading, metadata fields, inclusive versus non-inclusive—but the stakes are practical: searchability, fairness, and how close your evidence is to the way it’s ordinarily maintained.We walk through the competing proposals: defendants sought to produce only the most inclusive emails with a supplemental metadata field, while plaintiffs pressed for every message and its native metadata to support real-world workflows like custodian-based searches, timeline building, and deposition prep. Judge Young Kim’s analysis becomes a roadmap for litigators: Rule 34 favors production as ordinarily maintained; usability is not satisfied by bolted-on fields; and proportionality demands concrete numbers, not speculative claims about hosting costs and review time. The court ultimately sides with plaintiffs—“barely”—and explains exactly what evidence could have changed the calculus.Beyond the holding, we turn lessons into tactics. Threading can speed review and harmonize coding decisions, but it doesn’t justify depriving the other side of earlier messages or native metadata. Most platforms allow you to thread for review while still producing each email in a thread as a separate document with full fields intact. If you argue burden, bring data: gigabytes, rates, hours, throughput, and quality impacts tied to the actual collection. If you argue need, show how missing non-inclusive emails break custodian filters, analytics, and privilege accuracy. Antitrust matters may lean toward broader discovery, but the core principle travels: both sides deserve the same usable information.Subscribe for weekly, practical ESI case breakdowns, share this episode with a colleague who wrangles email evidence, and leave a quick review to help others find the show. Your feedback fuels the next deep dive.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

The digital evidence landscape continues to evolve at breakneck speed, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the ongoing saga of the In re Uber Techs. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros's March 2025 ruling delivers a groundbreaking perspective on hyperlinked documents in discovery that every legal professional needs to understand.Judge Cisneros has definitively established that hyperlinked documents function as attachments for discovery purposes when they reflect "a single communication at a specific point in time." This marks a significant departure from rulings by other judges who have found that hyperlinked files are not attachments. The decision underscores a critical reality of modern discovery: your judge's technological understanding can dramatically impact your case outcome.The ruling carefully navigates the complex technological landscape of Google Mail, Google Apps, and Google Vault that Uber uses for its corporate communications. While acknowledging that Uber cannot produce what technology doesn't allow (contemporaneous versions of hyperlinked documents from Google Vault), the court required production of hyperlinked documents from other platforms like Google Drive and Google Chat. This technology-aware approach balances discovery obligations with practical limitations.Most provocatively, Judge Cisneros signaled that technological advancement during litigation could create new obligations. If new tools emerge that make previously "impossible" collections possible, parties may need to reproduce information. This forward-looking stance should give pause to any organization developing its discovery strategy—what's technologically infeasible today may become required tomorrow.For legal teams working with corporate clients, this case serves as a powerful reminder to thoroughly understand your client's communication ecosystem before drafting ESI protocols. Despite having what appeared to be a comprehensive protocol, the parties still encountered gaps regarding hyperlinks in various applications and email threads. The most carefully crafted agreement can't anticipate every scenario in our rapidly evolving digital landscape.Have you examined how your team handles hyperlinked documents in discovery? Are you preparing clients for the possibility that technological advances might create retroactive obligations? The NRA v. Uber case demonstrates that in modern litigation, staying ahead of digital evidence challenges isn't just good practice—it's essential.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

What happens when discovery misconduct meets a high-stakes cancer detection technology dispute? A $292.5 million verdict, nearly $3 million in discovery sanctions, and potential disciplinary action against attorneys.The recent Guardant Health v. Natera litigation serves as a reminder of the devastating consequences of discovery misrepresentations and improper ESI management. At its core, this case involved competing technologies designed to detect minimal residual disease in colorectal cancer patients – a critical advancement that helps determine whether patients need to undergo grueling chemotherapy after initial treatment.What began as false advertising claims spiraled into a discovery nightmare when Natera's expert witness, Dr. Hochster, failed to disclose his communications about a crucial clinical trial. Despite having early access to negative study results regarding Guardant's product, both Dr. Hochster and Natera's counsel repeatedly claimed ignorance when questioned. The truth only emerged when Guardant subpoenaed Rutgers University directly, uncovering dozens of emails showing the expert's knowledge – including communications where he sent the embargoed study results directly to Natera's attorneys months before they claimed ignorance to the court.The judge's frustration leaps from the page in these decisions, highlighting statements from counsel in bold text and finding they "knowingly and deliberately misled the court." The sanctions were severe: complete exclusion of the clinical trial evidence, nearly $3 million in attorney fees, and appointment of a special master to determine potential disciplinary measures and state bar referrals for the attorneys involved.For litigators, this case underscores critical e-discovery principles: never allow witnesses to self-collect documents, implement robust systems to track ESI in complex litigation, and above all – be truthful with the court. When mistakes happen, transparency is the only viable path forward.Want to avoid multimillion-dollar sanctions and professional discipline? Make ESI management a priority in your practice and remember that in the digital age, deception leaves an electronic trail that persistent investigation will almost always uncover.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets to a winning litigation strategy by mastering the art of preserving ephemeral data. What happens when critical evidence vanishes into thin air? This episode promises to arm you with essential insights from the pivotal case of Two Canoes LLC versus Addian Inc., where the loss of WeChat messages led to significant legal sanctions. Join me, Kelly Twigger, as I dissect the crucial role of early planning and the often-overlooked data sources like mobile devices that can make or break a case. Learn from the pitfalls of neglecting evidence preservation, drawing parallels from the 2020 3M lawsuit over counterfeit N95 masks, and understand the profound implications on litigation tactics and risk management.Throughout our discussion, I unravel the challenges faced by Addian's CEO, Adam Woolworth, who failed to preserve essential messages, highlighting the ever-important themes of possession, custody, and control of data. We'll also delve into the broader landscape of eDiscovery case law, offering practical tips and insights to enhance your discovery practices. Whether you're a seasoned legal professional or navigating the complexities of eDiscovery for the first time, this episode is packed with valuable guidance to keep you ahead in managing electronically stored information. Subscribe and leave a review to stay informed on this rapidly-evolving field, and join me next week for more cutting-edge insights into the world of electronic discovery.  Two Canoes LLC v. Addian Inc. (April 30, 2024)Read the blog about this case- Minerva26 BlogMinerva26 WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereInterested in seeing Mode One's technology mentioned in this episode? Visit them at modeone.io.  #eDiscovery #CaseLaw #DataPreservation #mobiledevice #Sanctions #LegalTech #legalhold #failuretopreserve #wechat #LitigationStrategy #ElectronicDiscovery #DataRetention #CourtDecisions #LegalInsights #spoliation #discovery #litigationstrategyThank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

The lines between personal and professional communications have forever blurred, leaving attorneys and judges grappling with a fundamental question: When does an employer have "possession, custody, or control" over data stored on an employee's personal mobile device? In this illuminating conversation with U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, we unpack this critical issue that impacts virtually every modern litigation.Judge Rodriguez brings exceptional perspective to this discussion, having served as a practicing attorney at an AmLaw 100 firm, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and now as a federal district judge for over two decades. Drawing on this wealth of experience, he explains the two competing frameworks courts use to determine control – the "legal right" test and the "practical ability" test – while highlighting how neither fully addresses the realities of today's digital workplace.The problem extends far beyond academic legal theory. As business communications increasingly flow through text messages, WhatsApp, and other mobile-only applications, the stakes for preserving and producing this evidence have never been higher. Yet the case law provides inconsistent guidance, with courts often reaching conclusions without clear analysis of the underlying tests. This uncertainty leaves practitioners flying blind when advising clients about their preservation obligations.Most concerning is the rapid evolution of technology compared to the relatively static legal frameworks. Post-COVID work patterns have accelerated the use of personal devices for business purposes, creating a perfect storm where traditional notions of possession and control fall short. As Judge Rodriguez notes, "The rules and interpretation of the rules are not in pace with technology and the way that it's impacting data for purposes of discovery."Whether you're a litigator navigating these issues daily or an organization crafting BYOD policies, this discussion provides crucial insights into how courts are approaching this evolving landscape. Judge Rodriguez offers practical advice for early case assessment and emphasizes the importance of substantive conversations between opposing counsel about mobile data preservation before evidence is lost.Ready to rethink your approach to mobile device discovery? Listen now and join the conversation about how our legal standards must adapt to modern communication realities.Cases Discussed Allergan, Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc.Miramontes v. Peraton, Inc.In re Pork Antitrust Litig.Suggestion Box BBC's You're Dead to Me Podcast Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

The digital discovery landscape constantly evolves, creating new challenges for litigators navigating electronically stored information. Judge Godbey's March 2025 decision in Yvonne v. Solera Holdings exposes critical gaps between technology and legal frameworks that every attorney should understand.At the heart of this employment discrimination case lies a precedent-setting ruling about Slack messages that should alarm litigation professionals. The court found that because the defendant lacked an export-capable Slack plan, they had no "possession, custody, or control" over potentially relevant communications. This troubling conclusion effectively rewards companies for maintaining lower-tier communication platforms that shield evidence from discovery obligations. For litigators, this underscores the urgent need to understand client communication systems before disputes arise.The decision offers a masterclass in discovery burden allocation. Judge Godbey meticulously outlines how parties objecting to terms as "vague and ambiguous" must specifically demonstrate that ambiguity—not merely assert it. Similarly, the stark contrast between failed Slack requests and successful Chatter demands illustrates how evidence of relevance dramatically changes outcomes. A former employee's declaration about discriminatory comments provided the necessary foundation for compelling Chatter communications, while the absence of similar evidence doomed the Slack requests.Privacy considerations emerge as another crucial theme, with the court protecting non-party supervisors' performance records despite their potential relevance. Savvy attorneys should anticipate such objections by proactively proposing redactions or protective orders rather than leaving these determinations entirely to judicial discretion. The lesson? Discovery success depends on meeting your burden, understanding technical limitations, and anticipating counterarguments before they arise. When it comes to modern ESI discovery, what you don't know absolutely can hurt your case.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

What does it take for a court to dismiss a case due to spoliation of evidence? The SkyJet v. VSE Aviation decision provides a troubling answer to this persistent question in e-discovery jurisprudence.<br><br>When temperatures in a twin-engine aircraft skyrocketed during startup, causing severe engine damage, the resulting litigation hinged on critical recorded evidence. The aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured pilot communications during the incident, while the flight data recorder (FDR) tracked performance metrics. With the pilots mysteriously "unavailable" (reportedly in Canada), these recordings represented the only objective record of what transpired.<br><br>The discovery story that unfolded revealed a deliberate pattern of concealment. SkyJet initially claimed no recordings existed, then suggested they'd never received data from Logic Air (the company that extracted it). Yet emails eventually obtained directly from Logic Air revealed they had provided SkyJet two DVDs containing the recordings, with specific notes about which audio channel was "more interesting from the 30-minute mark."<br><br>Magistrate Judge Angel Mitchell's analysis pulled no punches, finding SkyJet had engaged in "dishonest and misleading discovery conduct" and acted with "intent to deprive" under Rule 37(e)(2). The court noted SkyJet provided "absolutely no explanation" for what happened to the data after receipt and characterized their litigation position as "baseless."<br><br>Yet despite this damning assessment, the court declined to dismiss the case. Instead, it issued a permissive adverse inference instruction, precluded pilot testimony, and awarded attorneys' fees. This outcome raises profound questions about whether our discovery rules provide sufficient deterrence against calculated evidence destruction.<br><br>The case serves as a masterclass in diligent e-discovery advocacy by VSE's counsel, who methodically pursued the missing evidence trail, coordinated with the court, and assembled a compelling spoliation narrative. But it also represents a cautionary tale about the limitations of Rule 37 sanctions in addressing even the most egregious discovery misconduct.<br><br>How can you better protect your case from similar discovery abuses? Contact us today to discuss effective preservation strategies and approaches to documenting potential spoliation.Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Ever feel like you're drowning in the ever-changing sea of electronic discovery? You're not alone. Drawing from over 25 years as a litigator and discovery strategist, I'm thrilled to introduce you to the newly rebranded Meet and Confer podcast - your lifeline in navigating the complex waters of ESI strategy.What began as a simple Case of the Week series has evolved into something much more comprehensive. While case law remains the backbone of effective advocacy, the modern legal landscape demands we look beyond precedent alone. Technology advances relentlessly, rules change, processes evolve, and perspectives shift. The Meet and Confer podcast tackles all these dimensions to give you a complete picture of the discovery ecosystem.Don't worry - your favorite Case of the Week segment isn't going anywhere! It continues in partnership with ACEDS, now complemented by exciting new segments like Mobile Minutes (a collaboration between Minerva 26 and ModeOne Technologies). Since the pandemic, mobile device discovery has exploded in importance, creating challenges that demand specialized attention. Whether you're wrestling with preservation issues, fighting for proportionality, or simply trying to understand what data exists where, this podcast aims to make your professional life just a little bit easier. My mission is helping you harness the true power of electronic evidence to achieve the best possible outcomes for your clients. Subscribe now and share with colleagues who could benefit from clearer guidance in the digital discovery maze!Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets of mobile device discovery in litigation with our latest episode featuring Kelly Twigger. Explore the crucial decision in Wegman v. US Specialty Sports Association Inc., where Magistrate Judge Robert Norway's ruling highlighted the increasing responsibilities of preserving electronically stored information (ESI) on mobile devices. This episode is your key to understanding the legal intricacies of mobile device usage in the workplace and the necessity for clear data preservation policies. Delve into the challenges organizations face, from user deletions to the limitations of cloud storage solutions like iCloud.Enhance your eDiscovery expertise as we journey through the complexities of mobile device data preservation. Discover the obstacles posed by lost or damaged devices and factory resets, and learn about data recovery techniques that can mitigate these issues. This episode serves as a valuable resource for legal professionals looking to optimize their electronic discovery processes. With insights drawn from significant cases like Hunters v. City of Seattle and NRA Pork, we provide actionable strategies to ensure compliance and improve litigation outcomes. Don't miss this opportunity to refine your litigation strategies in the evolving landscape of eDiscovery.Tune in for practical insights and actionable strategies to stay ahead in the complex landscape of eDiscovery.Wegman v. U.S. Specialty Sports Ass’n, Inc.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

 Join me, Kelly Twigger, as we unravel the pivotal decision in Coker v. Goldberg Associates, where a motion for sanctions over incomplete WhatsApp audio file productions takes center stage. This episode is your chance to master the nuances of ediscovery case law, guided by the insights of United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. We'll explore the depths of bad faith in ediscovery, the critical definitions of possession and control, and the significant consequences of failing to meet discovery obligations. Learn how timing and thoroughness in document production can protect your client's position and influence the outcomes of Fair Labor Standards Act disputes.Discover the complexities of modern communication tools like WhatsApp in legal proceedings and how neglecting a privilege log can lead to a waiver of privilege. Examine the strategic implications for the plaintiff and why early court intervention can be a game-changer in discovery disputes. Whether you're grappling with data preservation plans or understanding the impact of employee departures on e-discovery, this episode equips you with actionable insights to navigate today's legal landscape. Stay ahead in your practice and ensure that you're not caught off guard by the ever-evolving challenges of electronically stored information as evidence. Coker v. Goldberg & Assocs. PCRead the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Magistrate Judge Scott Hardy delivers a masterclass on what the meet-and-confer requirement really means in federal litigation—and the serious consequences of failing to cooperate in discovery.In this riveting breakdown of Wilbert v. Pyramid Health, we explore how one attorney's "mandatory" approach to ediscovery backfired dramatically. When plaintiff's counsel served a 30-page "Mandatory ESI Plan" on opposing counsel and then allegedly created "egregious barriers" to meaningful discussion, the court didn't just deny his motion to compel—it ordered him to show cause why he shouldn't face sanctions.The decision highlights a troubling trend judges call the "drive-by meet-and-confer," where attorneys go through the motions without actually engaging in good faith discussions. Judge Hardy leaves no room for interpretation: "The conferral obligation is not a bargaining chip to be offered in exchange for a concession on a disputed discovery process." This clear statement reminds practitioners that cooperation isn't optional—it's required by the rules.For litigators handling electronically stored information, this case serves as both warning and guidebook. We explore why having internal ediscovery protocols is wise, but attempting to unilaterally impose them on opposing counsel is a recipe for disaster. The discussion includes practical takeaways for ensuring your discovery approach satisfies proportionality requirements while avoiding the pitfalls that led to potential sanctions here.Whether you're crafting discovery requests or responding to them, this analysis will help you navigate the complex landscape of ediscovery cooperation with greater confidence and effectiveness. Subscribe to hear more insights on how to leverage ESI while staying within the boundaries courts expect.Links mentioned in episode:Wilbert v. Pyramind Healthcare, Inc.Read the blog about this case- Minerva26 Assistant BlogMinerva26 WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereMinerva26 Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Join us as we delve into the intersection of electronic discovery and cloud technology in this insightful episode. The discussion pulls apart the complexities surrounding the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and its pivotal role in legal disputes involving cloud services, spotlighting the recent case of Sihler v. Microsoft Corp. Here, we dissect how consent plays a critical role in retrieving communications from service providers like Microsoft, especially in light of rising digital evidence in litigation.Examine the relevant details of the Sihler v. Microsoft case, where the court confronted the challenges of evidentiary requirements as they relate to cloud communications. We explore how the ruling offers clarity on lawful consent and the steps necessary for legal practitioners seeking data from third-party providers. This examination reveals actionable insights and guidance for litigators navigating this evolving legal framework. Stay connected with us for more in-depth insights into e-discovery practices, and subscribe to ensure you don’t miss our upcoming episodes filled with expert commentary on the latest trends and legal developments. Don’t forget to check out our blog for additional resources!Links mentioned in episode:Sihler v. Microsoft Corp.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets of staying ahead in the fast-paced world of ediscovery with insights from the Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corp. case. Explore how United States Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarci's strategic approach to discovery timing ensures that legal teams meet crucial deadlines and avoid the growing trend of courts denying late submissions. Understand the critical importance of early identification and strategic planning for electronic sources of information, which can make or break a case. We'll reveal how resolving disputes through letters rather than motions can drive efficiency and align with the goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Gain a deeper understanding of discovery disputes and deposition preparation intricacies, as we dissect Judge DeMarci's methods in handling document production and data organization challenges under Rule 34. Learn about the delicate art of negotiating document production methods upfront to prevent chaos later, and the importance of clear communication in 30(b)(6) depositions. Join us to uncover the strategies necessary for navigating the complexities of legal proceedings and ensuring trust in the information production process.Links mentioned in episode:UF E-Discovery ConferenceValeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corp.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets of mastering electronic discovery with Kelly Twigger as we navigate the complex landscape of handling text messages in litigation. How do you handle non-responsive information in ESI without stepping on legal landmines? Join us as we dissect Magistrate Judge Gary Stein's pivotal ruling in "We the Protesters Inc vs. Sing Yong Wei," a case that underscores the crucial need for written agreements on redacting text messages. With mobile device data playing an increasingly significant role in legal disputes, these insights are indispensable for legal professionals aiming to stay ahead in their game.Get ready to transform your approach to eDiscovery with the latest case law updates and strategies to enhance your legal tactics. We bring you actionable insights from recent decisions, drawing essential parallels with landmark cases to help you leverage ESI more effectively. This episode is your guide to excelling in managing electronic discovery processes, ensuring you're equipped with the knowledge to negotiate and request ESI with precision. Subscribe, listen, and empower yourself with the expertise to navigate the ever-evolving world of eDiscovery.Links mentioned in this episode:University of Florida eDiscovery ConferenceHow to help those affected by the California fires:L.A. Fire Department FoundationAmerican Red Cross of Greater Los AngelesWorld Centra KitchenCases Mentioned:We the Protesters, Inc. v. Sinyangwe Hunter’s Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle Maziar v. City of Atlanta Safelite Grp., Inc. v. LockridgeLubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp. Al Thani v. Hanke In re Actos Antitrust Litig.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

What happens when the clock runs out on critical evidence in a high-stakes patent infringement case? Join me, Kelly Twigger, as we unravel the intricate layers of electronic discovery through the compelling Beacon Navigation v. BMW case. Discover how Beacon's late acquisition of essential source code from BMW's third-party supplier, Harman, put their litigation strategy on thin ice. Despite strategic maneuvers to extend fact discovery, the court slammed the door shut, raising the stakes for both sides. You’ll gain insights into the court's analysis through a five-factor test under Rule 37C and how Beacon narrowly avoided the exclusion of pivotal evidence, highlighting the unforgiving nature of discovery timelines.Peeling back the legal tactics, we focus on the critical role of third-party discovery and timely disclosures under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Through our discussion, learn about the increasing trend of courts barring undisclosed evidence and how early third-party engagement is more crucial than ever. This episode serves as a wake-up call for legal professionals, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning in cases involving electronically stored information. The lessons from Beacon’s ordeal underscore the necessity for meticulous management of discovery obligations, reminding us that the courtroom is no place for procrastination.Tune in for practical insights and actionable strategies to stay ahead in the complex landscape of eDiscovery. Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AGRead the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

This week on Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we explore a groundbreaking decision from Frazier v. Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc., involving alleged fabrication of video evidence in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The case, presided over by Judge Lisa Wood, highlights critical issues surrounding the authenticity of video evidence and the use of a court's inherent authority to impose sanctions.While this video was not AI-generated or a deepfake, it provides a fascinating glimpse into how courts evaluate fabricated evidence and offers key takeaways for anticipating similar challenges with emerging technologies.Kelly dives into the Court’s analysis, including findings of bad faith, fraud on the Court, and the decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. Learn how litigators can address authenticity concerns early, leverage the Court’s inherent authority when procedural rules fall short, and safeguard their cases against the rising threat of manipulated digital evidence.Tune in for practical insights and actionable strategies to stay ahead in the complex landscape of eDiscovery.Frazier v. Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this special anniversary episode of Case of the Week, Kelly Twigger celebrates four years of the series and the conclusion of 2024 with esteemed guests Stephanie Wilkins, former Editor-in-Chief of LegalTech News and current Content Director at Legaltech Hub, and Aaron Patton, better known as Gates Dogfish, a prolific eDiscovery meme creator and Managing Director at TrustPoint. Together, they reflect on the evolution of eDiscovery, share insights into major industry trends, and explore what lies ahead for legaltech in 2025.Highlights of this episode include:Reflections on the Past Four Years: Key milestones in eDiscovery case law and how the pace of legal decisions continues to accelerate.Hot Topics in eDiscovery: A deep dive into the ongoing debate over hyperlinked files versus traditional attachments, mobile device discovery challenges, and the implications of generative AI on the legal landscape.2025 Predictions: Expert insights into the rise of agentic AI, private equity's growing influence in legaltech, and the future of AI-driven tools for discovery.Practical Tips for Legal Professionals: Strategies for leveraging technology, understanding client data sources, and staying ahead of emerging issues in eDiscovery.Kelly, Stephanie, and Aaron bring their unique perspectives and humor to an engaging discussion, blending industry expertise with practical takeaways. Tune in to learn how to navigate the complexities of electronically stored information (ESI) and prepare for what’s next in eDiscovery and legal technology.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Discover the intricate details behind a pivotal court ruling involving Uber Technologies Inc. that is reshaping the landscape of electronic discovery. What happens when transparency in data preservation becomes paramount in litigation? Join me, Kelly Twigger, as I guide you through the unfolding legal drama of Uber's multi-district litigation over alleged sexual misconduct by its drivers. We'll unravel the implications of United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros' significant decision, focusing on the motion to compel Uber to reveal its litigation hold practices and ESI preservation details. As we explore this case, you'll gain valuable insights into the court's emphasis on the importance of custodial and non-custodial data in legal proceedings.Understand the ripple effects of this ruling on large organizations and their ESI preservation obligations. The court's decision sheds light on the critical need for detailed information about data custodians and highlights the balance between proportionality and relevance in document preservation. We'll discuss how Uber's response to these demands has influenced the ongoing litigation and the broader implications for eDiscovery practices. Whether you're a legal professional or simply fascinated by the complexities of the legal system, this episode is packed with insights and practical guidance to keep you informed in the evolving realm of electronic data management.Doe LS 340 v. Uber Techs., Inc.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Do boilerplate objections put your case at serious risk? Discover how the Delaware Chancery Court's decision in Bocock v Innovate Corp. challenges conventional practices in ediscovery. Join me, Kelly Twigger, on the Case of the Week podcast as we unravel the consequences of general objections and potential waivers under the 2015 federal rules amendment. This episode promises to equip you with cutting-edge insights into cost recovery, attorney-client privilege, and how to effectively handle the burden of discovery in litigation. Whether you are a litigator or simply intrigued by the complexities of electronically stored information, there's a wealth of knowledge waiting for you.In this episode, we dissect the timeline and pivotal moments of the Bocock case, highlighting the plaintiffs' costly misstep of failing to deliver specific discovery responses—a misstep that led to a crucial motion to compel. Gain a deeper understanding of the court's stance on the necessity for detailed responses and what it means for your litigation strategy. With actionable insights and analysis, this episode will help you navigate the evolving landscape of e-discovery, ensuring you stay ahead of the game. Subscribe now to enrich your legal expertise and gain practical strategies for your next case. Bocock v. Innovate Corp.,Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets of managing privilege and document preservation with Kelly Twigger on the Case of the Week podcast. What happens when giants like Lubrizol and IBM clash over contract breaches and the nuances of electronic information law? This episode promises to equip you with critical insights into Rule 502(d) and the timing of preservation duties—a must-know for any litigator in the digital age. Judge Jennifer Dow Armstrong's expert navigation through the competing motions between these corporate titans provides a rich tapestry of lessons on strategic litigation. In a groundbreaking discussion, we unravel IBM's document preservation practices and their consequential waiver of privilege in spoliation claims. Discover why the timing of preservation duties is pivotal and how a well-crafted privilege log can tip the scales in litigation anticipation. This episode serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of timely data preservation in an era of rapid technological change. Whether you're a seasoned attorney or just starting out, this episode offers indispensable strategies for staying ahead in the legal realm.Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM CorpRead the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Can the intentional deletion of text messages really cause a lawsuit to crumble? Join Kelly Twigger, as we unravel the intricacies of a pivotal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that led to the dismissal of a case due to spoliation sanctions. This episode uncovers the problematic actions of plaintiff Alyssa Jones in the Jones v. Riot Hospital Group LLC case, focusing on her alleged deliberate destruction of critical communications. By highlighting the appellate court's affirmation of the district court's decision, we delve into the concept of bad faith in handling electronically stored information and the dire consequences of not adhering to discovery obligations.Explore the nuances of Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions and grasp the broader implications for litigation strategy and data preservation. We dissect how the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of intent and prejudice played a crucial role in this case’s dismissal and the inescapable need for comprehensive preservation of mobile data. With expert insights, this episode serves as a crucial reminder for legal professionals on the strategic use of discovery tools and taking proactive measures to preserve electronic data.  Jones v. Riot Hosp. Group, LLC,Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Unlock the secrets of perfectly timed sanctions motions in electronic discovery with insights from Judge Ian Johnston's recent decision in Groves Inc versus RC Bremer Marketing Associates. Join me, Kelly Twigger, as we dissect the intricacies of when to file these critical motions without missing the mark. You'll gain valuable perspectives on how strategic communication with the court and proactive dialogues with opposing counsel can dramatically shape litigation outcomes. This episode promises to equip litigators and legal professionals with actionable strategies to navigate the complex world of spoliation issues and sanctions with precision.Ready to master the timing of your legal strategy? Discover how aligning with judicial preferences and understanding court procedures can lead to successful sanctions motions. This episode delves into the potential impact of permissive adverse inference instructions on trial outcomes, underscoring the importance of knowing the judge's expectations and ensuring transparency. Embrace the wisdom of Judge Johnston's practical approach, and learn how strategic timing and collaboration can optimize your litigation efforts and keep you ahead in the fast-paced realm of electronic discovery.Groves Inc. v. R.C. Bremer Mktg. Assocs.Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Ever wondered how the nuances of electronic discovery could make or break a legal case? Discover the pivotal role of document production and organization as host Kelly Twigger guides you through the intricacies of eDiscovery in this week's Case of the Week podcast. Gain insights from the Partners Insight LLC versus Gill case, emphasizing why clarity in document production requests is a must to avoid legal squabbles. Learn about the surprising breadth of eDiscovery case law, which transcends jurisdictional lines, and why district and state court decisions often hold more sway due to the scarcity of appellate rulings.Unearth the ongoing debate over TIFF versus native formats and why preserving metadata can be the linchpin in your legal strategy. Unpack how differing interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can tip the scales and the importance of keeping ESI in its original context. Twigger explores effective strategies for managing discovery costs and highlights the importance of precisely negotiating your data formats at the outset. Delve into key cases like Teledyne Instruments and gain expert perspectives that could transform how you approach eDiscovery. Don’t miss this compelling discussion that promises to keep you ahead in the fast-evolving landscape of electronic discovery.Partners Insight, LLC v. GillRead the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

Curious about whether legal holds are protected by privilege? You won't want to miss this week's breakdown of a landmark decision in the Federal Trade Commission versus Amazon case. We explore the intricacies of Amazon's legal battle, where Judge John Chun tackles whether Amazon must produce document preservation notices and instructions about the use of ephemeral messaging applications like Signal. Join Kelly Twigger, an experienced attorney with 25 years in the field, as she dissects the FTC's motion to compel and Amazon's privilege objections, offering keen insights that are crucial for anyone navigating the complex world of eDiscovery.This episode is packed with essential takeaways on how this ruling could influence your litigation strategy and risk mitigation practices. We highlight the potential ramifications of this antitrust case, coinciding with Amazon Prime Day, and what it teaches us about the broader implications for consumers, merchants, and your everyday eDiscovery obligations. Tune in for blunt, actionable insights that promise to keep legal professionals ahead of the curve, armed with the knowledge needed to tackle future challenges in electronic discovery with confidence.FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (July 9, 2024)Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode of Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we dive into a significant decision from Lopez v. Apple, Inc., issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on June 17, 2024. This case explores critical eDiscovery issues, including proportionality, spoliation, and sanctions, stemming from Apple’s data retention policies for Siri interactions and alleged privacy violations. Plaintiffs claim Apple failed to preserve critical Siri data after the duty to preserve was triggered, leading to allegations of bad faith and spoliation.Kelly unpacks the Court’s analysis under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, highlighting Apple’s shifting data policies, the implications of their auto-deletion practices, and the Court’s decision to leave the question of intent for the jury. The episode covers the harsh sanctions imposed on Apple and provides practical takeaways for litigators on proactive preservation strategies, navigating asymmetrical data, and presenting solutions to courts in preservation disputes.Don’t miss this compelling breakdown of a case with far-reaching implications for privacy, preservation, and the ever-evolving standards in eDiscovery.  Lopez v. Apple, Inc. (June 17, 2024)Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required) #eDiscovery #CaseLaw #DataPreservation #Spoliation #Sanctions #LegalTech #Proportionality #Rule37 #PrivacyLaw #LitigationStrategy #ElectronicDiscovery #DataRetention #CourtDecisions #LegalInsights Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode of Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we delve into a pivotal decision addressing the failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) and its costly consequences. The case highlights a retaliation claim against the City of Atlanta, centering on the loss of critical text messages and the resulting sanctions.Kelly breaks down the District Court's analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), explaining the nuanced distinction between prejudice under subsection (1) and intent under subsection (2). The Court's decision to deny summary judgment as a sanction underscores the profound impact of spoliation on litigation outcomes.Key takeaways include the importance of timely identification and preservation of ESI, particularly from mobile devices, and the severe repercussions of neglecting these obligations. Kelly offers practical advice for counsel on how to mitigate risk and ensure compliance, emphasizing the value of tools for targeted collections and early action.Join us to learn why failing to preserve even a handful of text messages can derail an entire case and how proactive strategies can safeguard your clients.Don’t miss this deep dive into a landmark ruling that every litigator should know. Maziar v. City of Atlanta (June 18, 2024)Read the blog about this case- eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)#Litigator #CivilLitigation #LegalInsights #LawPractice #LegalEducation #LegalPodcast #eDiscovery #LegalTech #CaseLaw #Litigation #ESI #Sanctions #PreservationThank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this groundbreaking episode of Case of the Week, host Kelly Twigger dives into the first discovery decision implicating generative AI in legal research—Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs. In this case, the Court uncovers potentially "hallucinated" citations submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel, raising serious ethical questions. Did generative AI like ChatGPT play a role in fabricating non-existent case law?Kelly breaks down the implications of relying on generative AI in legal contexts, why validation is essential, and the real risks of using AI as a research substitute. Discover how this decision could shape the standards for responsible AI use in the legal profession and why every litigator should take note.Tune in to explore the key takeaways and practical implications for eDiscovery professionals and legal teams alike.Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd. (July 24, 2024)Read the blog about this case-eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this Episode, Kelly Twigger, CEO and Founder of eDiscovery Assistant, unpacks the complexities of attorney-client privilege using the dominant purpose test from the recent In re Uber Technologies Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation case. She offers practical insights for litigation professionals on privilege determinations, inadvertent productions, and effective processes for resolving discovery disputes.Key Takeaways:Understand the nuances of the dominant purpose test in determining attorney-client privilege.Recognize the importance of analyzing each document individually when asserting privilege.Implement a clear process for inadvertent production and clawback to manage risks effectively.Start early with discovery planning, especially regarding privilege issues, to keep cases on track. In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig.Read the blog about this caseeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteSign up for Kelly's Case of the Week Newsletter hereeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)#Litigation #eDiscovery #AttorneyClientPrivilege #DominantPurposeTest #LegalInsightsThank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this Episode of Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we dive into a legal cautionary tale that every litigator should know. What happens when protected information inadvertently makes its way to the press? Kelly explores a recent court decision that sanctioned counsel for unintentionally violating a protective order—shedding light on Rule 37(b) and why timing, diligence, and immediate action are essential when managing third-party disclosures.Litigation professionals, tune in to gain practical insights on handling sensitive information under protective orders, avoiding costly mistakes, and safeguarding client interests even under pressure. This Episode equips you with key takeaways to help you stay prepared in the high-stakes world of litigation.Listen now for expert advice on navigating the risks and responsibilities that come with handling protected information.Cahill v. Nike, Inc.eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode of Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we dive into the recent decision in Safelite Grp., Inc. v. Lockridge to explore the critical implications of text message preservation settings in eDiscovery. Kelly examines whether a cease-and-desist letter triggers the duty to preserve ESI, how auto-deletion of texts can lead to spoliation, and what courts consider when issuing sanctions under Rule 37.Featuring expert insights from Jerry Bui of Right Forensics, we discuss:Whether default settings retain or delete text messages 🛠️How metadata can reveal when phone settings were modified 🔄Why quick action is essential to ensuring critical ESI isn’t lostListen now to learn practical strategies for avoiding sanctions and how to leverage ESI to tell a compelling story in your case.Safelite Grp., Inc. v. LockridgeeDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode of Case of the Week, Kelly Twigger explores the applicability of a 502(d) order to pre-litigation documents in the complex case of FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (August 1, 2024). Kelly breaks down how inadvertent production and redactions play into privilege waivers under FRE 502(b), highlighting the challenges Amazon faced managing privileged documents across multiple investigations. Tune in to learn why the Court ruled that privilege was waived, the critical importance of maintaining consistent privilege protocols, and key strategies for preventing inadvertent disclosures.Key Takeaways:How redacted productions can undermine claims of inadvertence.Why timely clawbacks are essential under FRE 502(b).The Court’s view that 502(d) orders don’t apply to investigations.Practical advice for leveraging AI and technology to prevent privilege waiver.This episode provides essential insights for litigators and legal professionals navigating privilege management and eDiscovery pitfalls in high-stakes cases. Don't miss the actionable tips on preparing your team to avoid privilege-related risks in investigations and litigation.FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (August 1, 2024)eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode of Case of the Week with Kelly Twigger, we dive into a recent court decision that tackles the ever-present challenge of custodian selection in discovery. Should in-house counsel be included as custodians? And what factors impact the scope of a custodian list?Kelly breaks down the decision, focusing on the court’s application of Rule 26 proportionality and practical strategies for litigators managing large-scale discovery. Whether you're deciding how many custodians to include or navigating disputes over relevance, this episode offers key insights to help you stay ahead.Tune in for practical takeaways that will shape your discovery strategy moving forward.#ediscovery #litigation #proportionality #inhousecounsel #frcprule26  #caseoftheweekDale v. Deutsche Telekom AGeDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode, Kelly Twigger breaks down a crucial FRE 502(d) order in the In re TikTok, Inc. In App Browser Privacy Litigation case. Learn how this order can protect you from inadvertent production of privileged material and why  having a 502(d) order could be a costly mistake.Kelly walks you through Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's recent ruling, providing practical tips on how to leverage Rule 502(d) in your own cases and comparing the differences between 502(b) and 502(d).Whether you're a litigator or eDiscovery professional, this episode is packed with insights you can apply to your practice today. Don’t miss out on this vital discussion!Listen now and stay ahead in eDiscovery!#ediscovery #litigation #502d #privilege #caseoftheweekIn re TikTok Inc. In App. Browser Privacy Litig.eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

 Join Kelly Twigger in this Episode of Case of the Week as she examines the EEOC v. Formel D USA, Inc. case, highlighting the consequences of failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) and the impact it had on the court ordering the production of a litigation hold notice. Kelly explores the court's analysis under Rule 37(e), spoliation sanctions for lost text messages, and the debate around the GDPR's role in protecting data from U.S. discovery. This Episode offers key takeaways on self-collection, attorney-client privilege, and best practices for preserving ESI in litigation. Don’t miss the practical insights for litigation professionals navigating modern eDiscovery challenges. EEOC v. Formel D USA, Inc. eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Additional cases mentioned in this episode:United Illuminating Co. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.Doe LS 340 v. Uber Techs. IncUnited Illuminating EEOC v. M1 5100 Corp. Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode, Kelly Twigger dives into a recent court ruling that addresses a key issue in modern discovery—are hyperlinked files the same as attachments? This decision, involving hyperlinked documents in emails, highlights the court’s stance on the higher burden of producing hyperlinked files and how litigators need to navigate this growing challenge. Kelly unpacks the practical implications of the ruling, offers insights for updating your ESI protocols, and provides essential tips for staying ahead in eDiscovery.Tune in to hear Kelly’s expert analysis on hyperlinked files, what this ruling means for your discovery practice, and why staying up-to-date on these developments is critical for litigators.UAB “Planner5D” v. Meta Platforms, Inc.eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! #eDiscovery #Litigation #LegalTech #HyperlinkedFiles #PodcastThank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

 In this week’s episode, Kelly Twigger dives into a key decision from In re Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros. The episode explores the challenges of hyperlinked files in the context of an ESI protocol, highlighting issues with cloud-stored data and the production of contemporaneous versions of documents. Kelly breaks down the Court’s analysis of Google Vault’s limitations, manual review burdens, and metadata requirements—all crucial for understanding eDiscovery's evolving technical landscape. This decision marks a significant milestone for handling hyperlinked files in litigation. Tune in for a detailed breakdown of what it means for your cases. #ediscovery #caselaw #litigation #hyperlinkedfilesThank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this week’s Case of the Week, Kelly Twigger breaks down the crucial decision in Nichols v. Noom Inc., 2021 WL 948646 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), a case with far-reaching implications for how legal teams manage the collection and production of hyperlinked documents. This episode focuses on a pivotal challenge in modern eDiscovery: the complications of dealing with hyperlinks in emails instead of traditional attachments—and the technological limitations of collection and review platforms in handling this new reality.Kelly explores the Southern District of New York’s analysis, led by Judge Katherine Parker, which emphasizes the evolving nature of electronically stored information (ESI). The case examines whether hyperlinked documents should be treated as attachments and the proportionality concerns of forcing defendants to recollect data using forensic tools like FEC from Metaspike.The practical implications are significant: Noom’s use of Google Vault for data collection raised issues about missing metadata, document relationships, and the plaintiffs' inability to link hyperlinked documents back to emails. Kelly provides valuable insights into how parties must adapt their ESI protocols to account for platforms like Google Apps and Microsoft Teams, where hyperlinked documents are prevalent.With key takeaways on the necessity of planning collection strategies that address hyperlinked content, Kelly also discusses the court’s reasoning in balancing discovery obligations with proportionality concerns under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The episode highlights how the absence of standardized metadata fields for linked documents presents new challenges for eDiscovery professionals—and why it’s time for the legal community to rethink traditional assumptions about attachments in modern communication.This episode is a must-listen for litigators and eDiscovery professionals navigating class actions or complex business disputes. Join Kelly as she shares practical strategies for addressing this emerging issue, ensuring your ESI protocols account for today’s data realities, and preparing your team for the future of eDiscovery.𝐍𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐯. 𝐍𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐧𝐜., 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏 𝐖𝐋 𝟗𝟒𝟖𝟔𝟒𝟔 (𝐒.𝐃.𝐍.𝐘. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏)eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.  

In this episode, Kelly Twigger reviews Gardner v. Wells Fargo, where the failure to preserve and produce social media led to a motion for dismissal sanctions. Learn the growing importance of social media in litigation and how failing to preserve these records can result in severe penalties.Gardner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2020 WL 7205236 (E.D. Wash. 2020)eDiscovery Assistant BlogeDiscovery Assistant WebsiteeDiscovery Assistant Free 7 day Trial (no credit card required)Have questions for Kelly or have a specific decision you would like us to cover? Reach out at [email protected]! Thank you for tuning in to Meet and Confer with Kelly Twigger. If you found today’s discussion helpful, don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. For more insights and resources on creating cost-effective discovery strategies leveraging ESI, visit Minerva26 and explore our practical tools, case law library, and on-demand education from the Academy.