by Kelly Twigger
The legal landscape of ediscovery continues to evolve at a breakneck pace, driven by new technology, evolving communication platforms, and increasingly sophisticated judicial expectations. The 2024 case law on discovery has been nothing short of transformative, with courts setting new precedent on everything from sanctions for lost mobile device data to the admissibility of AI-generated content.
If one theme stands out in 2024, it’s this: ediscovery is no longer just about compliance—it’s about strategy. Whether you’re a litigator navigating complex discovery battles or in-house counsel mitigating risk, staying ahead of these rulings is critical. Here’s what you need to know. (download full report here)
1. Hyperlinked Files: Modern Attachments or a Discovery Nightmare?
Hyperlinked files—documents stored in cloud repositories and linked within emails instead of being attached—have emerged as one of the most litigated issues in discovery. Courts continue to grapple with whether these files should be considered part of the original communication and whether parties are obligated to produce them.
In In re StubHub Refund Litigation, the Court initially required production of hyperlinked documents after the parties agreed in an ESI protocol that they would be treated like traditional attachments. However, when StubHub later demonstrated the extraordinary cost and burden of retrieving “as-sent” versions, the Court modified its order, showing that technological feasibility is becoming a key consideration in production obligations.
Similarly, in In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., the Court took a much stricter approach, emphasizing that if a party chooses a particular document storage system, it must also produce all related hyperlinked documents—especially if they form a critical part of the record. This ruling signals a growing expectation that legal teams understand the technology they’re using and proactively address hyperlink production before litigation escalates.
Key Takeaway: If you’re handling cases involving Microsoft 365, Google Drive, or cloud-based collaboration tools, you must proactively assess how hyperlinked documents are stored, preserved, and collected—or risk costly motion practice.
2. Mobile Device Discovery: Courts Are Done Giving Second Chances
For the sixth consecutive year, courts issued over 200 rulings on mobile device discovery disputes, particularly surrounding text message preservation. This year, we saw an increase in severe sanctions—including the denial of summary judgment in some cases—when parties failed to properly retain or produce mobile communications.
In Safelite v. Lockridge, an individual defendant failed to preserve relevant text messages, arguing that his phone automatically deleted them every 30 days. The Court rejected the argument that he lacked sophistication, holding that even individual parties are expected to manage their own preservation obligations. This ruling highlights a fundamental shift: courts are no longer willing to excuse mobile device data loss, regardless of whether a party is an individual or a sophisticated corporate defendant.
A similar approach was taken in Maziar v. City of Atlanta, where the Court denied summary judgment as a sanction for failing to preserve key text messages. The case underscores that failure to act quickly and preserve mobile data can directly impact case outcomes.
Key Takeaway: Courts are no longer accepting excuses when text messages, WhatsApp data, or ephemeral messaging disappears. Legal teams need to audit mobile data retention policies early and consider forensic collection methods to ensure preservation.
3. The First Wave of Generative AI Case Law Has Arrived
Last year, we predicted that Generative AI would dominate discovery discussions, and 2024 delivered. Courts are now issuing the first rulings on AI-generated content in discovery, addressing whether AI-created documents are admissible and whether prompts or questions asked of AI models are discoverable.
In UAB “Planner5D” v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the Court addressed the question of AI training data and whether the input and output of AI-generated content can be subject to discovery requests. The ruling suggests that parties may be required to produce AI-generated documents if they are relevant to a dispute.
Similarly, in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon was compelled to disclose details about how it handled Generative AI-based decision-making processes, a signal that courts are now considering AI-generated records within the scope of discovery.
Key Takeaway: If your case involves AI-generated content, be prepared to address its discoverability, accuracy, and potential bias—this area of law is still developing, but courts are moving quickly to set boundaries.
4. The Privilege Battle Over Legal Hold Notices
For years, legal hold notices were presumed privileged and protected. That’s changing fast. Multiple courts ruled in 2024 that legal hold communications may be discoverable when there’s a preliminary showing of spoliation.
In EEOC v. Formel D, the Court required production of hold notices after finding that mobile device data was deleted. The same logic was applied in Homeland Ins. v. Ind. Health Ass’n, Inc., where the Court ruled that basic details about preservation efforts must be disclosed.
Perhaps the most impactful ruling came in FTC v. Amazon, where the Court granted a 30(b)(6) deposition on Amazon’s preservation policies, reinforcing the idea that corporate defendants must be ready to explain—not just assert—that they properly preserved ESI.
Key Takeaway: If you’re managing litigation holds, be aware that details about preservation efforts may not be protected—especially when data is lost. Expect more scrutiny on retention practices.
5. Strategy is Everything: Courts Want Facts, Not Arguments
One of the most consistent judicial messages in 2024: Discovery motions require hard numbers or facts, not just arguments.
Courts routinely rejected proportionality objections that lacked specific document counts, cost estimates, or burden calculations. We saw this play out in Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp., where IBM failed to provide concrete evidence of its claimed burden in producing documents, leading the Court to deny its proportionality argument outright.
In Bocock v. Innovate Corp., the Court also issued cost sanctions for failing to provide specific, timely discovery responses, reinforcing the critical need for early planning and documentation.
Key Takeaway: Proportionality objections must be backed by detailed, factual evidence—vague cost arguments are no longer enough.
Looking Ahead: What to Expect in 2025
With collaboration tools, AI-generated content, and mobile device discovery dominating the courts, litigators can expect even more scrutiny on preservation and production practices.
Courts are increasingly expecting technical fluency from legal teams, meaning understanding ESI sources isn’t optional anymore—it’s a requirement. Those who fail to stay ahead of these issues risk costly motion practice, sanctions, and adverse outcomes.
The bottom line? Discovery is a battlefield, and case law is the map. Stay informed, plan ahead, and treat discovery as the strategic advantage it is.
Read more about 2024’s most important eDiscovery Case Law decisions in our new report; 2024 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review Report.
If you are ready to take charge of your ediscovery, reach out to our team today and schedule a quick demo.
