E-Discovery: Modernizing a Practitioner's Approach in a Post-Pandemic Social Media Era
Practitioners should be aware of additional media channels and communication options when requesting ESI. As soon as litigation is anticipated, counsel should determine both whether relevant ESI may be found in these alternative media, and the accessibility of this information.
May 18, 2022 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
For the past two decades, electronically stored information, commonly known as ESI, has been widely understood to mean requests for another party's emails during discovery. However, in today's post COVID-19 era, there is a significant fracturing of the way individuals communicate. Practitioners should be aware of additional media channels and communication options when requesting ESI. As soon as litigation is anticipated, counsel should determine both whether relevant ESI may be found in these alternative media, and the accessibility of this information.
New Jersey Court Rule 4:18-1 governs the production of ESI. ESI does not include merely emails, but any data or documents created or stored on electronic media, and types of ESI are often used as electronic evidence in litigation. Rule 4.18-1(b)(1), like Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(1)(C), allows a party to specify the form or forms in which ESI is to be produced when requesting discovery. Practitioners in 2022 and beyond should look to all the various sources of discovery that fit the definition of ESI.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllCould the E-Discovery Job Market Undergo a 'Great Recalibration' in 2024?
4 minute readSony's Sharpie Redaction Gaffe Is Egregious, But Underscores Common E-Discovery Gaps
4 Ways Generative AI-Produced Deepfakes Are Impacting the Legal Industry
1 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
- 2Separate Ethics Cases Yield Disbarment, Censure for NJ Attorneys
- 3NYSBA Annual Meeting Day One: Gen AI Ethics, Social Media Pitfalls, and More
- 4Latham Lands Top Spot as US Firms Dominate in UK M&A Rankings
- 5Mich. Attorney Faces One-Year Suspension in Ill. for Lying to Firm, Clients
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.