December 1, 2007 – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant received from an anonymous source a copy of an email sent by plaintiff which had not been produced by plaintiff in discovery, court denied defendant’s motion for access to plaintiff’s computer but stated that defendant would be permitted to depose plaintiff about items in his possession and items no longer in his possession, and court would be willing to entertain renewed motion depending on the testimony obtained

Nature of Case: Student who was suspended and denied re-admission alleged discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying Ford’s request for clarification of January 4, 2007 Order, court nonetheless confirmed that plaintiffs may ask deponent about what materials are available for production, and if materials are not available, why they are not available; “Plaintiffs are not, however, permitted to use the deposition as a surrogate for production of the suspension document, and may not ask questions pertaining to the specific contents or rationale behind the suspension order.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notice

C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents listed on privilege log, court nonetheless found log inadequate and ordered plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log and, further, to identify whether or not each email listed is a ?string? or ?strand? email and, if so, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry in the privilege log

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had invited motion to address e-discovery issues in order to assure that e-discovery issues were moving foward, court granted motion and directed parties to the Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI for the District of Kansas to serve as guidance pendng enactment by the court of its own local rules and/or guidelines; court further noted that, although no formal preservation order had been entered, the duty to preserve evidence including ESI arises as soon as a party is aware the documentation may be relevant; court further warned parties to be “very cautious” in relying upon the safe harbor provision of new FRCP 37(e)

Nature of Case: Nuisance and CERCLA claims against owners of poultry growing operations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2007 WL 1932917 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where moving party did not proffer ?a scintilla of evidence? that allegedly missing emails ever existed in the first place but simply speculated that they may have existed, and even assuming arguendo that such emails did exist, moving party could not establish any of the three required elements of spoliation, i.e., 1) that the party with control over the evidence had a duty to preserve it when it was lost or destroyed; 2) that the evidence was lost or destroyed with a ?culpable state of mind?; and 3) that the evidence was relevant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and violation of the New York State Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Jacobs v. Scribner, 2007 WL 1994235 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Noting that a motion to preserve evidence requires court to consider: 1) level of concern for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of a preservation order; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to party seeking preservation absent such an order; and 3) capability of individual or entity to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering the evidence preservation, court denied (without prejudice) motion for entry of preservation order as premature since defendants had not yet appeared

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Videotaped interviews relevant to plaintiff’s claims

Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information

Nature of Case: Putative class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant “deliberately and stubbornly refused to produce the most basic information about its Ohio contacts and has likely destroyed much of that information after it put those contacts directly at issue,” magistrate judge denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as least drastic discovery sanction and awarded plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1875928 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of magistrate judge’s March 12, 2007 order awarding plaintiff $22,371 in expenses and attorney’s fees as sanction for defendant’s discovery violations

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Archive - December 1, 2007