December 2011 – Page 18 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant, ?a small company with 13 employees? who presented evidence that it was not profitable, objected to discovery pursuant to 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) based on an estimated cost of $2,630 to comply with plaintiff?s request (which included, in part, the cost of necessary software to complete the review), the court declined to shift the cost of production but stated that defendant could choose to produce un-reviewed ESI to plaintiff, thus shifting the cost of software necessary for review, but if defendant wished to review the data first, it would bear the costs of doing so

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. AIG United Guaranty Corp., No. 3:09cv529, 2011 WL 1225989 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For fraud on the court (attributed to plaintiff as the result of employee?s alteration of emails) and for abuse of the litigation process (resulting from in-house counsel and management?s failure to adequately investigate the existence of other altered emails and subsequent reliance on one such altered email in the filing of their first complaint), court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys? fees and costs associated with defendant?s sanctions motion but denied the request for additional sanctions, including dismissal, adverse jury instructions, and issue preclusion

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Altered emails

In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ?Deepwater Horizon? in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2011 WL 1193030 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected claim of marital privilege and a request for the return or destruction of emails allegedly protected from disclosure where petitioner and wife communicated through company?s email accounts and where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in light of company policies which ?clearly demonstrate? that employees? communications are not private, that they may be monitored or accessed by the employer, and that they are subject to production by a subpoena

Nature of Case: Claims arising from oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in response to the at-issue request for production, defendant failed to identify its archives as a source of information that it would not search or to object to plaintiff?s request and, in fact, represented that it would produce responsive information, court found the information sought was relevant, that plaintiff?s motion was timely, and ordered defendant to search its archives upon rejecting defendant?s untimely assertions of undue burden and cost

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, claims under the Communications Act, and various tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Archived emails

U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, No. 09-23222-CIV, 2011 WL 1102822 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where Bates labeling documents already produced in native format would have required defendants to convert the documents to an alternative format and would have cost between $16,000 and $75,000, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel Bates labeling, despite the requirement to do so as laid out in the Discovery Practices Handbook appended to the local rules in the Southern District of Florida

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud in the inducement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in native format

United States v. Fetter, No. 3:10 CR 411, 2011 WL 1060301 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where video of defendant?s alleged destruction of evidence while in a holding cell was automatically recorded over pursuant to the department?s standard policy and was not preserved because none of the officers involved in the investigation realized the images from cameras in the cells were recorded (as opposed to merely ?stream[ed]? to allow observation), court found no bad faith and thus no violation of due process arising from destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence (as opposed to exculpatory evidence)

Nature of Case: Criminal (sex trafficking)

Electronic Data Involved: Video of defendant while in holding cell

Diesel Mach., Inc. v. Manitowoc Crane, Inc., No. CIV 09-4087-RAL, 2011 WL 677458 (D.S.D. Feb 16, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties had an agreement to produce in native format which the court had approved and adopted but later agreed that defendant could produce some information in hard copy (in light of defendant?s representation that hard copy production could be more quickly accomplished prior to pending depositions), the court found the parties agreement to produce in native format was modified and declined to compel re-production citing the burden and expense (including duplication of time and expense of conducting redactions, for example)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and claims arising from South Dakota Dealer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced in hard copy

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, 2011 WL 814463 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs admitted to fabricating evidence and failed to comply with court orders to produce certain hard drives and other data storage and instead argued, among other things, that the hard drives etc. were in possession of an unrelated foreign corporation (ANZ International) and that ANZ USA was not involved in the discovery violations (including the fabrication of evidence), the court rejected such arguments upon establishing the connection between ANZ Int. and ANZ USA and ordered that plaintiffs? claims be dismissed

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence, hard drives, other storage devices

In re Royce Homes, LP, No. 09-32467-H4-7, 2011 WL 873428 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected employee of debtor?s assertions of privilege where employee failed to properly assert such privilege in his privilege log; assuming arguendo that emails were privileged, court found that employee had waived privilege in several ways: 1) employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications sent or received on employer?s computer system and thus had no privilege in communications with his attorney; 2) employee provided unqualified access to emails by third parties, one of whom he asked to review his emails to identify which were privileged despite her lack of legal education; and 3) employee allowed trustee to have unqualified access to the emails by failing to object to their production to the trustee when informed that the emails would be produced

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails between employee and attorney sent on company computer system

Peterson v. Seagate, 2011 WL 861488 (D. Minn. Jan 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where court found that plaintiffs? EEOC claims did not provide sufficient notice of the likelihood of a nationwide class action and where defendant destroyed the ESI of the former employees at issue in accordance with its usual document retention policies, court found that plaintiff had failed to show that information was destroyed in an effort to suppress the truth or that they had suffered any prejudice and declined to order sanctions

Nature of Case: Class action alleging age discrimination in employment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employees

Archive - December 2011