2010 – Page 27 – Electronic Discovery Law

Alexander v. Archuleta County, 2010 WL 363390 (D. Colo. Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant communications despite a court order and offered no explanation for the delay and where the court determined the delayed production resulted in prejudice to the defendants, that the prejudice could not be cured by additional discovery, and that plaintiff?s discovery conduct was ?in bad faith and willful?, court ordered two affidavits in support of plaintiff?s response to summary judgment stricken and prohibited plaintiff from introducing those witnesses? testimony at trial and for plaintiff to pay defendant?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel re-production of electronic spreadsheet in its ?original format? i.e. without a lock that prevented the manipulation of data, the court rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs request be denied because 1) the original format was protected work product, 2) the parties never agreed to a format of production, and 3) re-production would be unduly burdensome and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

G2 Prod., LLC v. Does 1-83, 2010 WL 253336 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery for the purpose of discovering the identities of defendants, including their true name, address, phone number, etc. because good cause existed for such discovery where identification of the defendants was necessary for the case to progress; court ordered subpoenaed ISPs to notify the subscribers in question to provide an opportunity to quash, but ordered ongoing preservation of the subpoenaed information until resolution of any such motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscribers

Ypsilanti Comty. Auth. v. Meadwestvaco Air Sys., 2010 WL 200836 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, following an order to produce an amended privilege and a warning that ?it would not be given another opportunity to establish privilege,? defendant?s amended privilege log still contained mistakes and where, in its attempt to correct those mistakes and clarify its claims of privilege, defendant then produced a sworn affidavit which once again failed to properly identify privileged emails vs. non-privileged attachments, court found defendant failed to establish privilege as to the documents in the affidavit and ordered them produced

Nature of Case: Contracts product liabilty

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege emails, email attachments

United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite finding Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 did not require the government to identify the evidence upon which it intended to rely at trial where defendants claimed the government had attempted to overwhelm them by providing access to a database containing millions of documents, and despite government?s production of an index to the database and directions to the materials it deemed most relevant, magistrate recommended the government be ordered to provide defendants with an exhibit list and hard copies of the exhibits ten days before trial, for the government to supplement that list as necessary, and for the government to comply in good faith where the government had previously offered to supply the same

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to destroy records and destruction of records

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Howell Educ. Assoc. MEA/NEA v. Howell Board of Educ., 2010 WL 290515 (Jan. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Reversing the trial court, appellate court found personal emails retained on public school?s email system were not public records and therefore not subject to disclosure pursuant to Michigan?s Freedom of Information Act; court also concluded that violation of an acceptable use policy that does not expressly provide that emails are subject to FOIA does not render personal emails subject to disclosure pursuant to FOIA

Nature of Case: FOIA

Electronic Data Involved: Personal emails

Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2010 WL 271426 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought leave to conduct third party discovery for purpose of identifying defendants, court granted leave to serve third party subpoenas on web hosting sites for purpose of obtaining identifying information, but denied motion to allow additional discovery exceeding the scope of plaintiff?s limited, stated purpose of identification of defendants

Nature of Case: Unauthorized sales of online gambling “chips”

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information

Wright v. City of Salisbury, 2010 WL 126011 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff purposefully arranged a conversation with the mayor, recorded the conversation, preserved the portion relevant to his lawsuit on his website server and then lost the remaining, irrelevant portion as the result of problems with his computer, court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish plaintiff?s bad faith or any prejudice resulting from the loss and where the court found plaintiff?s uncontroverted explanation for the loss ?reasonable and believable?

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Archive - 2010