Philip Favro

After the enactment in 2015 of amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), sanctions for failing to preserve relevant electronically stored information (ESI) could only be considered if a preserving party “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it.” Since that time, parties have sought to better understand how courts would interpret the phrase “reasonable steps to preserve.” A new case from the shores of one of

The federal judiciary recently lost one of its more talented members when United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck retired from the bench last month. Throughout his judicial career, Judge Peck was at the forefront on discovery practice issues. Various articles and events have celebrated the advancements his opinions made on eDiscovery law.

One of the most watched lawsuits in recent memory involved a key ethical issue of which lawyers should be aware: the dangers of using self-destructing messaging applications. In Waymo v. Uber, tech titans Google (Waymo) and Uber waged an epic battle over the future of self-driving vehicle technology. Waymo (Google’s autonomous vehicle unit) claimed Uber stole its self-driving vehicle technology in order to develop

Discovery sanctions are often viewed as a litigation game-changer. They seemingly offer a way to tip the scales of justice against a sanctioned party and drive a matter toward settlement. Nevertheless, sanctions have their limitations, particularly if they are not case dispositive.