Mobile Device Forensic Discovery is Important as This Case Illustrates: eDiscovery Best Practices

One of the best indicators of changing sources of ESI evidence in litigation is case law rulings.  This recent article from Forensic Discovery uses a recent case (that I covered, no less) to illustrate the importance of mobile device forensic discovery.

The article Mobile Device Forensic Discovery: Here’s a Case That Illustrates the Importance discusses the case Measured Wealth Private Client Group v. Foster, et al. (which I covered here) where Florida Magistrate Judge William Matthewman ordered mobile phone forensic discovery for two different individual defendants over a two month period. The case involved misappropriation of trade secrets claims against the defendants, who left the plaintiff’s employment and joined a direct competitor of the plaintiff.  As I noted in this post, trade secret cases are very high stakes.

In the second ruling, Judge Matthewman stated that: 1) “text messages and iMessages responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests from the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, are relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses in this case.” He also stated that 2) “Defendant appears to have been obstructionist with regard to her production of text messages and iMessages during the discovery process.”

So, what happens when you have high stakes, relevant and proportional discovery and a defendant who “appears to have been obstructionist”?  You have a need for mobile device forensic discovery!  Check out their article here on why and some of the things you need to know when considering mobile device forensic discovery in litigation.

So, what do you think?  How many sources and forms of email have you dealt with in your litigation cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: Forensic Discovery is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Leave a Reply