Case law is one of the strongest indicators of how to handle linked documents. So, here is the latest in the case law of linked documents from Cimplifi.

In their post titled (wait for it!) Taming Modern Data Challenges: The Case Law of Linked Documents (available here), Cimplifi briefly discusses some of the most important case law rulings regarding linked documents and why they may be important to how your organization addresses discovery of linked documents. Here’s one of the cases they discuss (from this year, no less!):

In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., (N.D. Cal. March 11, 2025)

Here, the parties submitted a joint stipulation reflecting their compromise regarding the production of “hyperlinked material”, which called for weekly requests of “no more than ten (10) hyperlinked documents that have otherwise not been produced” (which California Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros entered as an Order).

Why this ruling is important: This stipulation illustrates the importance of compromise if the parties can’t agree on an approach to handle large volumes of linked documents.

So, what are the other cases you need to know regarding the case law of linked documents? Find out here, it’s just one click! It is (after all) a linked document! 😉 And here are Cimplifi’s other three posts in this series on linked documents!

So, what do you think? How is your organization taming modern data challenges in eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4o’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot lion tamer holding a whip and holding a chair taming a robot lion”.

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.