Ten Mobile Device Discovery

Ten Mobile Device Discovery Case Law Rulings: eDiscovery Trends

Tens are wild today! And some of these ten mobile device discovery case law rulings from Cimplifi are wild, yet instructive!

In the article (Getting the Message: Ten Recent Case Law Rulings Involving Mobile Device Discovery, available here), Cimplifi discusses ten mobile device discovery case law rulings (duh!) over three categories. Here are the categories with a description of one of the cases each:

Fourth Amendment and Data Privacy


U.S. v. Sam: The Court ruled that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it viewed the lock screen of the defendant’s phone (which revealed the name “STREEZY”) without a warrant.

Relevancy, Proportionality and Forensic Examination

Sandoz, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corp.: The Court granted the relief requested by the defendant compelling the plaintiff to produce contextual text messages in addition to those responsive to search terms.

Spoliation and Sanctions

In Re Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc., et al.: The Court, calling the defendants’ failure to preserve cell phone data for five custodians (and spoliation of other mobile device data) a “text book case of spoliation,” issued adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions against the defendant.

What are the other seven of the ten mobile device discovery case law rulings? You’ll have to read their blog post here to find out! It’s just one more click! They’ll “bowl you over”! See what I did there? 😉

So, what do you think? What’s your favorite mobile device discovery case? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: Cimplifi 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