December 1, 2011 – Page 15 – Electronic Discovery Law

Seven Seas Cruises S. De. R.L. v. V. Ships Leisure SAM, No. 09-23411-CIV, 2011 WL 772855 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants ?failed to properly conduct complete, thorough and timely searches of ESI responsive to Plaintiffs? discovery requests,? which the evidence showed resulted from ?a lack of familiarity and/or training in searching and producing ESI?, the court declined to impose default judgment and instead recommended that defendants? Motions for Summary Judgment be denied and ordered that defendants retain a third party consultant or vendor to perform a search for responsive documents, that responsive ESI be produced in a prescribed format, and that defendants pay plaintiffs? attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Claim for damages arising from defendants? alleged failure to provide proper ship management and care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

CNX Gas Co. LLC v. Miller Petroleum, Inc., No. E2009-00226-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1849082 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order that shifted defendant?s costs related to the production and review of electronic discovery subject to plaintiff?s motion to compel where defendant provided ?specific facts? presented in an affidavit of its IT personnel that demonstrated that the ?electronic documents requested by CNX created an undue burden because those documents required an additional review to prevent the disclosure of privileged information? and where it was within the trial court?s discretion to ?tailor? the discovery requests, including by shifting costs

Nature of Case: Suit arising from dispute related to oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

People v. Chromik, No. 3-09-0686, 2011 WL 1346923 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Transcript of text messages created when student read the messages to her principal who typed them into a Word document and which were admittedly altered by spell check were properly admitted as evidence by the trial court where the trial court ?ensured that all knew the document was exactly what it purported to be: a transcription of the victim?s reading of the text messages?; where both parties were allowed to argue over interpretation; where defendant was allowed to present evidence that indicated spell check likely resulted in alterations; where the dates and time contained on the transcription and attributed to text messages from defendant mirrored the dates and times identified in the phone company?s records; and where the victim testified as to the content of the messages and defendant did not deny sending them

Nature of Case: Criminal sexual assault

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Liberty Media Holding, LLC v. Swarm of November 16, 2010 Sharing Hash File A3E6F65F2E3D672400A5908F64ED55B66A088B8, No. 11cv619 (BLM), 2011 WL 1597495 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve subpoenas on identified ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Does 1-95 granted

Nature of Case: Coyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subsribers

United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where detective preserved transcripts of internet chats by copying them into Word documents saved onto CD and verifying that they were identical to the original transcripts rather than preserving the original transcript on a department hard drive for purposes of saving space, defendant?s due process rights were not denied by destruction of the original transcript absent evidence that they would ?significantly contribute to his defense? and were lost as a result of bad faith; transcripts in Word documents were properly admitted in light of detective?s testimony that he participated in the chats and that the transcripts were accurate; transcripts did not violate best evidence rule absent evidence that originals were destroyed in bad faith; admission of transcripts did not violate rule of completeness; district court did not err in denying request for jury instruction on spoliation and destruction of evidence where there was no evidence that portions of chat were destroyed (because detective testified he saved conversations in their entirety) and no showing prejudice

Nature of Case: Crimnal charges related to attempt to coerce minor to engage in sezual activity

Electronic Data Involved: Chat transcripts

Cacace v. Meyer Mktg. (Macau Commercial Offshore) Co., No. 06 Civ. 2938(KMK)(GAY), 2011 WL 1833338 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found duty to preserve arose upon defendant?s consultation with counsel regarding possible infringement on plaintiff?s patent but abated upon the parties? successful negotiation of licensing agreement; court found that defendant had no control and thus no obligation to preserve certain documents from an employee of a Hong-Kong based affiliate; regarding an email folder accidentally deleted following inadvertent ?exposure? to automated purge function, court declined to find the loss was a result of negligence and found that plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of information lost and declined to impose sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 274 F.R.D. 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendants? discovery abuses, including spoliation or withholding of audio tapes of wiretapped conversations despite a court order to produce them; destruction of relevant hard drives and refusal to authorize release of copies of those drives from a third-party; and failure to produce other relevant evidence, court found that plaintiff had been prejudiced and ordered default sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fraudulent scheme to recover insurance reimbursements

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, hard drives

Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., No. CV-09-2153-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1671925 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Highlighting that a party?s duty of preservation is owed to the court and not to a potential plaintiff, court found that defendant was grossly negligent in its failure to issue a litigation hold or take other efforts to ensure preservation of relevant evidence and ordered an adverse inference; court also found that defendant acted ?willfully in failing to timely and adequately respond to the document requests? where defendant?s search terms were not ?calculated to capture? relevant documents and where a court ordered (re)search resulted in production of thousands of documents only three days before the close of discovery and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct and for the reasonable attorney?s fees spent to challenge the misconduct, prepare for additional depositions, and bring the instant motion for sanctions; court?s opinion specifically declined to hold that a lack of written litigation hold was negligence per se

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. related to purchase of condominium

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Int?l Med. Group, Inc. v. Walker, No. 1:08-cv-923-JMS-TAB, 2011 WL 1752101 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where relevant evidence found on defendants? hard drive ?challenge[d]? defendants? prior assertions that they had not retained copies of certain communications and defendant Walker?s ?self characterization as a peripheral observer?, the court concluded that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of fraud and that defendants therefore waived their attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel regarding: ?preservation, destruction, or location of documents or discussion of discovery obligations?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to defame and tortuously interfere with business relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Commc?n, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for alleged spoliation of one email where plaintiff failed to establish that the ?destruction of the email was anything but inadvertent or that any other email was deleted? or that the email constituted relevant evidence favorable to the defendants; court?s opinion indicated that defendants? use of oral instruction to preserve evidence was acceptable; court denied motion for sanctions related to defendants? failure to preserve and produce all runtime environments for allegedly infringing software program where defendants took efforts to preserve similar evidence with the belief that such preservation was sufficient and thus did not have a sufficiently capable state of mind to establish spoliation and where plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the allegedly spoliated evidence to its claims

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer files related to development of allegedly infringing software

Archive - December 1, 2011