E-Discovery for IoT Devices: Primer for Representing Individual Clients
How can IoT data impact your individual clients in federal court litigation? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide some guideposts, but much is uncertain given the relatively new introduction of many IoT products and the rapidly developing feature sets.
January 29, 2021 at 02:30 PM
8 minute read
While estimates vary, the number of globally Internet-connected devices now ranges anywhere from 20 to 30 billion—a staggering statistic that only becomes more staggering when considering the amount of data created by those devices. See Leading the IoT, Gartner, at 2; Gilad David Maayan, The IoT Rundown for 2020, Security Today (Jan. 13, 2020).
At a macro level, the "Internet of Things" or "IoT" describes "dedicated-function objects" connected to the Internet (e.g., refrigerators, vehicles, or washing machines). See Leading the IoT at 2. Traditionally, those devices performed singular functions without regard to any other devices or Internet data. But, as technology has infiltrated every aspect of our daily lives, consumers have grown accustomed to IoT devices—whether they know it or not. These IoT devices transmit data back and forth to centralized servers or data repositories, or they communicate with other devices in the home. For simplicity, we employ the term IoT devices to also include wearable devices, such as smart watches and sleep tracking devices.
IoT devices benefit from exponentially more data to make mundane tasks more efficient and customizable. For example, homeowners simply can open their doors to set off a chain reaction of smart devices connected to Wi-Fi, such as deactivating an alarm, changing the lighting and music, adjusting the thermostat, preheating the oven for dinner, and opening the blinds. Perhaps even more pertinent to litigation, health data and other personal information are routinely collected by many IoT devices. The latest Apple Watch Series 6 can now measure blood oxygen levels, take an ECG, and measure fitness and other health metrics. "Smart scales" can measure and transmit weight, BMI, heart rate, and body composition. And, of course, Alexa and Google Home are continuously "listening" to conversations throughout the home. See Grant Clauser, Amazon's Alexa Never Stops Listening to You. Should You Worry?, New York Times (Aug. 8, 2019).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250