2010 – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

State of California ex rel Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 2010 WL 3991298 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants resisted production of electronically stored information and sought to shift the costs of such production to plaintiff by presenting affidavits and expert testimony regarding the expected cost of production which, in large part, was the result of defendants? lack of a data retrieval system for archived information and its failure to suspend archiving documents despite the commencement of related litigation in 2004, and where it was revealed that the expert testimony presented lacked sufficient foundation, the court held that defendants had acted in bad faith and could no longer be trusted and awarded plaintiffs? fees and costs in the amount of $42,978.43; affirmed on appeal

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ESI

O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Metadata is subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act

Nature of Case: Public Disclosure Act

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of records following foreclosure on plaintiffs? company where plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure preservation of relevant data after the foreclosure, including requesting the data?s preservation and permission to copy relevant records, and where ultimately some (but not all) records were obtained via subpoena from the third-party purchaser of plaintiff?s former assets and defendant was unable to establish prejudice; court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? replacement of two crashed hard drives where the court could not conclude the plaintiffs intentionally or carelessly permitted the destruction, particularly in light of their attempts to recover some data with limited success; court denied spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? use of CCleaner absent evidence that any data was actually deleted; despite the lack of prejudice resulting from one plaintiff?s admitted deletion of allegedly personal documents in light of those documents existence in hard copy, court imposed an ?adverse inference against [plaintiff?s] credibility as a witness? at trial citing the purpose of deterring similar misconduct in future

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

United States v. Nagle, 2010 WL 3896200 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Applying the four factor test from In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., court found that a memorandum saved on the hard drive of a work-issued laptop was protected by attorney-client privilege where, despite the existence of a policy warning that internet and email was not private, there was no policy banning personal use of work computers, there was no evidence that the employer ever monitored employees? use of work computers, there was limited access by others to the relevant employee?s laptop and such access was only with that employee?s permission, and where there was no testimony that the employee was aware of the employer?s policy

Nature of Case: Criminal charges

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged document saved on work-issued laptop

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Beluga Shipping GMBH & Co. KS ?Beluga Fantastic? v. Suzlon Energy, Ltd., 2010 WL 3749279 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted non-party?s Google Inc.?s Motion to Intervene to oppose Defendant?s request for leave to conduct discovery and to subpoena from Google the contents of two cross-defendants? accounts and other, related information where production of the emails themselves was barred by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act absent consent from the accounts owners, and thus it was futile to issue subpoenas; court granted in part defendant?s petition for leave to conduct discovery and ordered Google to disclose documents reflecting when the accounts were created, the names of the account holders, and the countries from which the accounts were created ? information not precluded from disclosure by the ECPA ? and instructed Google to preserve the snapshot of the emails in the account

Nature of Case: Petition for leave to conduct discovery in foreign judicial proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to Google account holders, and contents of accounts (emails)

Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2010 WL 3777540 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing numerous discovery issues, the court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered the parties to submit a status report, preferably jointly, proposing a discreet number of proposed custodians and search terms, and to submit a joint-cost sharing agreement ?for the hefty cost of searching electronic files as represented by [defendant] with an accompanying affidavit in support of the anticipated costs?; court reasoned in footnote that ?justice require[ed]? cost sharing in light of the expense of searching electronic files and in light of the amount of documentation already produced by the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Meridian Fin. Advisors Ltd. v. Pence, 2010 WL 2772840 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the receiver?s failure to disclose the existence and specific location of relevant emails by the required initial disclosure deadline pursuant to Rule 26, the court imposed sanctions and precluded the receiver?s use of such ESI at trial; for the receiver?s failure to disclose its access to defendants? privileged communications (including accessing, through the actions of a third party, the personal and privileged emails of one defendant by accessing his personal email accounts without his knowledge), the court imposed monetary sanctions, including payment of the costs of investigating and bringing the motion as well as payment of one defendant?s attorney?s fees during the time his co-defendant provided the receiver with access to his privileged communications

Nature of Case: Receiver filed suit against former officers and employees for myriad of claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, civil conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Archive - 2010