The National Attorneys General Training & Research Institute

The National Attorneys General Training & Research Institute The National Attorneys General Training & Research Institute

Electronic Discovery Bulletin January 2018

The following is a compendium of articles and case law that may be of interest to our AG offices that are dealing with electronic discovery issues. Neither the National Association of Attorneys General nor the National Attorneys General Training & Research Institute expresses a view neither as to the accuracy of the articles nor as to the position expounded by the authors of the hyperlinked articles.

EDiscovery provider Kroll Ontrack developed what it calls The Ultimate Predictive Coding Handbook, a user-friendly reference to applying predictive coding in eDiscovery. It addresses such topics as when sampling is used and how to interpret metrics and can be downloaded here.

The Sedona Conference released its final version of The Data Privacy Primer, a practical framework and guide on privacy issues. It can be downloaded at

EDiscovery provider Lexsight is hosting a webinar, The Players and Play of an eDiscovery Team in a Complex ESI Review on February 13, 2018 at 1 pm ET. Register for the webinar here.

Recent Case Law to Note

In Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted defendants’ motion to compel proper productions and ordered the plaintiffs to either provide its search hit list, meet and confer on the results and screen them for responsiveness and privilege OR produce 700,000 additional responsive documents and pay for the defendants to conduct TAR on the results.

In IBM v. Naganayagam, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding no intent to deprive by the plaintiff and no prejudice against the defendant.

In Hurd v. City of Lincoln, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted defendants’ motion to quash, finding the plaintiff failed to show the Mayor’s deposition was proportional to the case, but allowed the plaintiff to bring the motion again if the mayor’s subordinates’ testimony was insufficient.

In Lester v Allied Concrete Co., a Virginia circuit court ordered an attorney to pay $522,000 for instructing his client to remove photos from his Facebook profile, and for his client to pay an additional $180,000 for obeying the instructions.

Hedda Litwin is the Editor of E-Discovery Bulletin and may be reached at 202-326-6022. The E-Discovery Bulletin is a publication of the National Association of Attorneys General. Any use and/or copies of this newsletter in whole or part must include the customary bibliographic citation. NAAG retains copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the material presented in this publication. For content submissions or to contact the editor directly, please e-mail

Faculty Spotlight

NAGTRI's faculty are top-rated experts in their field. Read about them.

Course Schedule

NAGTRI offers high-quality, responsive and innovative trainings.

Research & Newsletters

NAGTRI produces comprehensive research and newsletters on topical legal issues.