Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

Case Date: 09/15/2014
Citation: Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., Case No: 5:13-cv-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2014)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Philip R. Lammens
Rule(s): Rule 26
Issues:

Defendant filed motion to compel an examination of Plaintiff’s computer and law firm server. Defendant also moved for spoliation sanctions.

Resolution:

The Court denied Defendant’s motion to compel. The Court held that Plaintiff had already provided discoverable material that would likely have been duplicative and had sufficiently shown that additional discovery would be unduly burdensome. Defendant was not able to demonstrate that the benefit of additional discovery, of which Defendant was not even certain what to search for, would outweigh Plaintiff’s burden. Therefore, the Court also denied Defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions.

Relevant Documents:

Motion for Forensic Examination (Doc. 119) 

Response in Opposition to Motion for Forensic Examination (Doc. 121)

Order on Motion to Compel Forensic Examination (Doc. 135) 

 

E-Discovery Issues: Motion for Sanctions, Motion for Spoliation, Motion to Compel
E-discovery Tags: Costs, Data Recovery, Forensic Analysis/Examination, Privacy, Relevancy, Sanctions, Sources of ESI, Spoliation
E-discovery subjects: Computer, Email, Servers

Published: February 9th, 2018

Category: Uncategorized


Deprecated: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /h/cnswww-ediscovery.law/ediscovery.law.ufl.edu/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5411

Comments are closed.