December 1, 2010 – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Smith v. Mpire Holdings, LLC v. 2010 WL 3294184 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendants to sign releases authorizing ISPs to disclose ?all account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains? where ?given the nature of the transactions? at issue, such information would be likely to involve the confidential matters of numerous third parties and where the court was unable to protect those parties from ?unauthorized disclosure of their confidential records and information?; court analysis included finding that defendants had control of the electronic information in the custody of the ISPs ?because, according to federal statute, they may consent to grant access to their information?

Electronic Data Involved: All account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Chevron Corp. v. Stratus Consulting, Inc., 2010 WL 3489922 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted petitioner?s motion to compel production of subpoenaed information in native format, including re-production of materials already produced in .pdf format, where, despite respondent?s objections, the court determined the underlying metadata could be probative, but ordered petitioner to bear the cost where the subpoena had been ?less than clear? regarding the format of production and where respondents? claims of undue burden ?carrie[d] some legitimacy?; court?s opinion acknowledged respondent?s argument regarding the inability to Bates stamp native documents and ordered that the documents be Bates-stamped ?only as technologically possible?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For failing to abide by its good-faith discovery obligations by withholding from production, without justification, certain relevant ESI and ?willfully fail[ing] to search two important and obvious repositories for responsive ESI?, the court determined that ?substantial monetary fines, payable to Nycomed and to the Clerk of the Court, are appropriate sanctions, as they will adequately advance ?the prophylactic, punitive and remedial rationales? of discovery sanctions? and ordered Glenmark to pay $100,000 to Nycomed ?to cover a portion of its costs? and to pay an additional $25,000 to the Clerk of the Court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 3087472 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling electronic production of defendants? general ledger and specifically rejected defendants? Rule 34 argument that because plaintiff failed to state the form of production, it could produce in hard copy, where defendants failed to specify a particular form of production in their response, where defendants failed to timely raise the Rule 34 issue (despite filing several motions discussing production of the ledger), and where defendants also failed to produce the evidence in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form as is required by the rule; a Motion to Stay this order was thereafter denied, See Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage 2010 WL 3218386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2010)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., 2010 WL 2951871 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to identify the authors and recipients of all documents listed on its privilege log and warned that failure or inability to do so would result in waiver; where defendant failed to separately log all messages within email chains, the court recognized a split in authorities regarding the need to itemize each message separately and concluded that in this case, the ?better approach? would be to require defendant to supplement its log with each message itemized

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged email

Mformation Tech., Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 2010 WL 3154441 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010)(Not for Citation)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where nearly two months following notice of inadvertent production of privileged materials plaintiff undertook a review of its entire production and production process and thereafter attempted to recall an additional 55 inadvertently produced documents, the court acknowledged that plaintiff ?was perhaps not as diligent as defendant would have liked? in initiating its search, but denied the motion for a finding of waiver

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged materials

Jones v. Comsys IT Partners, Inc., 2010 WL 3002083 (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where in response to plaintiff?s motion for a protective order requiring the preservation of relevant emails defendants affirmed they had been preserving relevant evidence and would continue to do so, the court denied plaintiff?s motion as moot

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?

Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI

Archive - December 1, 2010