When might a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action want a defendant healthcare provider to produce an electronic audit trail, and what proofs might be offered in favor of and against production? A recent case, Vargas v. Lee, suggests some answers.
On a daily basis, we read about new apps or devices that may create, store, and transmit electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to the health of an individual. Healthcare providers may be required to reach out to those entities and produce ESI in response to a legal adversary’s discovery requests.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled on a class action suit alleging the plaintiff’s biometric information collection practices violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. What might this mean for healthcare providers or other entities that collect biometric information?
The first Legal eSoeaking post of 2019 takes a look at a recent decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that addresses the question of “whether an employer has a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information that the employer stores on an internet-accessible system.” This decision offers a classic example of how the common law (judge-made law) can be used to establish rights and remedies to economic injuries allegedly caused by new technologies.
When the defendant in a recent court case had to admit “it bollixed its litigation hold… to a staggering degree” regarding electronically stored information, the judge determined that there was “little question” that sanctions were warranted, as “such irresponsibility with regard to discovery cannot be countenanced.”