December 1, 2009 – Page 23 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dunkin? Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 WL 1750348 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the information sought to be ?largely relevant and discoverable,? court granted defendants? motions to compel in part and ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a ?workable search protocol to obtain the information sought by the defendants in light of what was discussed at the motion hearing?; specifically, the court noted that defendants? proposed terms could be ?narrowed temporally? and that the scope of the terms could be tailored to individual employees identified by defendants and ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs with a list of employees whose email they wanted searched and the specific terms to be used for each person

Nature of Case: Action to enforce termination of franchise agreement alleging breach of contract and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. Salazar, 2009 WL 1703232 (D.D.C. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: ?Unconvinced? that defendants had not unduly limited the scope of their search for responsive documents, court ordered additional searching but limited the scope of plaintiff?s proposed terms and parameters and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding: an agreeable search methodology consistent with the court?s opinion, the identification of potentially responsive databases and custodians likely to maintain relevant information, and ?a list of search directives? likely to result in the identification of relevant documents

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ashman v. Solectron Corp, 2009 WL 1684725 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered plaintiff to return documents retained improperly following termination of his employment but allowed him to utilize any such documents produced by defendant in the ?normal course of discovery? and where defendant argued that it need not produce the documents returned by plaintiff if it could not find the documents in its own system as such documents were outside the scope of ?normal? discovery, court ordered defendant to produce the non-privileged and relevant documents because they were within defendant?s ?legal possession, custody and control? and thus subject to disclosure

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Elec. Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy, 2009 WL 1717383 (Cal. Ct. App. June 19, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where terminating sanctions were ordered against defendants for the deliberate deletion/destruction of electronically stored information using wiping software but where the subsequent judgment of the trial court was reversed on appeal and remanded and where the trial court thereafter granted plaintiff?s motion for terminating sanctions, appellate court ruled that trial court did not err in granting plaintiff?s motion where the court?s previous discovery orders to produce information remained in effect and where defendants continued in their violation of such order by failing to produce relevant discovery because they had destroyed it; court stated: ?A continuing discovery violation does not end if the responding party is permanently unable to comply because that party intentionally destroyed the material it was ordered to produce.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, intentional interference with economic relationships, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Artie?s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1578251 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 7, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s response to plaintiffs? discovery requests encompassed as many as 20 supplemental responses over 5 years, including the production of 1,487,824 pages of electronically unsearchable ESI 5 years after plaintiffs? first request (which plaintiffs paid to convert to a searchable format), court found defendant?s efforts ?did not represent a good faith effort to comply with the rules of practice or the case management orders of this court? and violated ? 13-14(a) of the Practice Book and accordingly ordered sanctions including allowing re-deposition of witnesses at defendant?s cost, reimbursement of plaintiffs for conversion costs, and payment of plaintiffs? attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Having previously established a standard for the authentication of computer generated evidence in State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781,847 A.2d 921 (2004), court highlighted distinction between ?technologies that may be characterized as merely presenting evidence and those that are more accurately described as creating evidence? and held that unmodified surveillance footage did not constitute computer generated evidence for purposes of Swinton; testimony of camera operator that the footage presented to the court was the same footage he observed when the images were originally captured was sufficient to authenticate the unmodified video; court?s admission of modified video footage was harmless error

Nature of Case: Sale of narcotics

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Bolger v. D.C., 608 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants admitted destroying relevant radio communications but argued that such destruction was not sanctionable because it unintentionally occurred as the result of a routine operation of the police communication systems and because the information destroyed was of minimal relevance, court found that defendants were under an obligation to preserve and had (at least) negligently destroyed the radio communications, but declined to order an adverse inference because plaintiff?s proffer of evidence regarding the communications? relevance and the proper inference from their destruction was ?too speculative?

Nature of Case: ? 1983 Action against D.C. police for constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: Radio communications (“radio runs”)

Kravetz v. Paul Rever Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1639736 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2009) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: For purposes of determining the number of hours worked by plaintiff following his injury, court granted motion to compel the production of several hard drives and storage devices used by plaintiff to conduct business but limited the inspection to relevant metadata and forbade inspection of the substance of any documents

Nature of Case: Disability claim

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata on hard drives

In re Zurn Plex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 1606653 (D. Minn. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arguing the requested search of emails and various computer drives would be unduly burdensome, court dismissed attorney?s affidavit in support of such objections as ?not compelling evidence? where attorney was not ?an expert on document search and retrieval? but, ?in an effort to control costs,? limited defendants? search to particular locations and ordered the use of 14 terms as supplied by the court or agreed upon by the parties; court invited defendants to renew their objections if the search nonetheless proved overly burdensome by submitting evidence, including evidence from ?computer experts,? in support of those objections

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants’ choice of plumbing fittings caused damage to plaintiffs’ property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Panos v. Timco Engine Ctr., Inc., 2009 WL 1658416 (N.C. Ct. App. June 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff despite defendant?s accusations of spoliation and request for an adverse inference instruction where precedent established that the imposition of an adverse inference was permissive and not mandatory and that it was improper to base the grant or denial of summary judgment on evidence of spoliation, among other principles of law, and where defendant failed to identify any information destroyed by plaintiff that could support it?s claims and presented no independent evidence in support of its claims or alleged damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2009