2010 – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered to produce hard copy ?job files? for non-city projects as an alternative to conducting key word searching of 25 custodians to identify emails related to non-city projects but where defendant objected that hard copy was less searchable and would not contain all relevant emails, court denied defendant?s motion to compel keyword searching and production of ESI citing the more than two month delay since the issue was first raised, the close proximity of trial, and the court?s inability to determine the relevance of the 188 proposed search terms and ordered plaintiff?s production of hard copy files

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A&L Underground, Inc., 2010 WL 126190 (D. Kan. Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied sanctions for defendants? alleged ?document dump? of a hard drive containing both responsive and non-responsive documents as maintained in the ordinary course of business where, upon plaintiffs? initial objection, defendants re-produced the hard drive with irrelevant documents segregated and with a tool allowing the hard drive to be word-searched and where, despite plaintiffs? alleged discovery of evidence reflecting defendants? purposeful efforts to obstruct discovery, plaintiffs waited 15 months to bring their motion and were thus ?simply too late?

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 4337388 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to avoid searching and producing emails and related documents maintained by defendants? CEO and CTO and argued that they had already produced 5.5 million pages and that the information sought was cumulative and therefore imposed an undue burden, the court noted defendants admission that they had not searched or reviewed the materials of the relevant executives and found that plaintiff had shown the likelihood that such a search could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and ordered the executives? materials to be searched and if responsive, produced

Electronic Data Involved: Executives’ ESI

Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. Coll. Of the Christian Bros. of New Mexico, 2010 WL 4338057 (D.N.M. Sept. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where parties could not reach agreement regarding parameters of search protocol, court ordered defendant to utilize search terms proposed by plaintiff but declined to order search of email at the present time, established the appropriate date range, and ordered defendants to produce ?exculpatory information?, i.e., ?anything that the College … believes [plaintiff] could reasonably use or could reasonably lead to admissible evidence?; court declined to order defendant to produce the files identified as a result of the search and ordered instead the production of a report of the results and for the parties to confer regarding the results

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Johnson v. Neiman, 2010 WL 4065368 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for a protective order precluding their obligation to produce evidence contained only on backup tapes where defendants made a sufficient showing of the burden to do so in terms of both money and time and where plaintiff was unable to establish good cause to compel the production; court found it ?most significant? that plaintiff had ?no idea what, if any? discoverable information could be obtained by the restoration and search of the tapes

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, No. 09-00228-KD-N, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider its prior order directing plaintiff to produce certain hard drives and other data storage devices for forensic inspection where plaintiff failed to establish that such production was prohibited by Indian law and where plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the court?s prior determination that plaintiff?s behavior ?cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document produced? by plaintiff such that actual production of the devices was warranted

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, data storage devices

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 4004164 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Based upon suspicious timing of the disappearance of ESI, the court inferred that evidence had been destroyed in bad faith by a person who knew that it would ?very well reveal information Defendants did not want revealed? and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury at trial, that plaintiff should be permitted to amend its claims to add a claim for exemplary damages based on the adverse inference, that defendants pay plaintiff?s costs and fees, and that defendants make unredacted mirror images of the hard drives of each employee of the corporate defendant at defendants? expense, to be delivered to plaintiff by a date certain; hard drives were covered by a previously entered protective order

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Archive - 2010