December 1, 2012 – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., TN, 2012 WL 4945607 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Reviewing District Court?s denial of spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion, Circuit Court found that the at-issue information should have been preserved and was intentionally destroyed but upheld the denial of sanctions based on plaintiffs? inability to establish relevance, a necessary element of the test for determining whether sanctions are appropriate

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Survey results)

El Camino Resources, Ltd. v. Huntington Nat?l Bank, No. 1:07-cv-598, 2012 WL 4808741 (W.D. Mich. May 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge recommended the adoption of the approach of the Third Circuit in Race Tires Am. Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., which limits the recoverable costs related to electronic discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1920 and thus granted in part plaintiffs? motion to disallow costs

Nature of Case: Business tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to production of ESI

In re White Tail Oilfield Servs., No. 11-0009, 2012 WL 4857777 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the petitioner (for an order compelling production) had access to plaintiff?s Facebook account but argued that merely taking screen shots would not include deleted information and where plaintiff alleged numerous difficulties with using the ?download your information? feature such that he could not produce the contents himself, the court ordered plaintiff to produce the information within 7 days but also noted that because the petitioner had access to the password, it could access the account and utilize the ?download your information? button, which would send that information only to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff would then be obligated to forward that information to Petitioner?s counsel

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4829615 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For failure to produce unredacted database entries despite three court orders to do so, court found that defendant had acted in bad faith to withhold relevant documents and, as a sanction, ordered that facts be established in plaintiffs? favor, namely that the rental listing database included directives from landlords that clients receiving government housing assistance should not be assisted in applying for housing with those landlords; court also ordered defendant to pay Plaintiffs $231,000 in attorneys fees

Nature of Case: Housing discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Clark Cnty. v Jacobs Facilities, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00194-LRH-PAL, 2012 WL 4609427 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite inadvertently producing (or discussing without objection) the at-issue document as many as times thirteen times, the court found that privilege was not waived where the parties stipulated that inadvertent production would not result in waiver and where the analysis under Fed R Evid 502 resulted in a finding that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure, including key word searches for privileged documents, and that prompt steps were taken to secure the document?s return upon defendant learning of the inadvertent production; notably, it appeared that the document was not identified either because it was labeled ?client-attorney? rather than ?attorney-client?

Nature of Case: Alleged gross mismanagement of construction project result in significant costs to plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chevron Corp. v. Wienberg Group, No. 11-406 (JMF), 2012 WL 4480697 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the state of the ?modern privilege log? Judge Grimm noted the strong trend toward mechanically produced privilege logs with boilerplate information which do not sufficiently describe the documents and the nature of the privilege and ordered defendant to produce factual work product and to properly describe the redacted portions and indicated that he would hold defendant to their 26(g) obligations ?ruthlessly?

Nature of Case: Environmental damages

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged/work product ESI

Chandler v. Buncich, No. 2:12 cv 175, 2012 WL 4343314 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a preservation order but made no attempt to show that defendants would destroy evidence and instead focused on the prejudice that he may suffer if such destruction occurred, court indicated that the possibility of prejudice alone was insufficient to warrant the relief requested and further noted that defendants had acknowledged their duty to preserve and that there was no reason to doubt that they would fulfill that duty

Nature of Case: Injuries from attack suffered while in custody

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance data, photos & “related media”

St. Louis Produce Mkt. v. Hughes, No. 4:09CV1912 RWS, 2012 WL 4378194 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In a case where defendant tried to ?pull a fast one? by altering material terms to a contract and inducing plaintiff to sign it, defendant sought but was repeatedly unable to procure production of defendant?s laptop — which it suspected was used to alter the contract — and when the laptop was produced, it had been substantially damaged. Moreover, evidence indicated that defendant had destroyed relevant cell phone records and emails and that defendant?s counsel made repeated misrepresentations to the court. Thus, the court struck defendant?s pleadings as a sanction.

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment that contract was invalid because procured by fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Okla., No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 3986344 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2012); No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 4363752 (Sept. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where independent forensic examiner was tasked with determining whether plaintiff?s data was present on defendant?s laptop and with maintaining an image of defendant?s laptop sealed from inspection, but where plaintiff reserved the right seek discovery and thereafter subpoened the non-party investigator to produce the mirror image of defendant?s laptop, magistrate judge found that rule 45 subpoena was an appropriate discovery method and denied defendant?s motion to quash; on emergency appeal, the District Court noted that allowing direct inspection of a party?s hard drive was not routine, that because of the presence of potentially privileged material, even plaintiff?s expert should not have access to the entire hard drive without allowing defendant?s to object to the production of certain information and that in light of the short time before trial it was ?simply too late?; court noted that this ?predicament? was one plaintiff ?created itself? by waiting to seek access to the hard drive despite knowing for months of the potential that its data was present there

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

DMAC LLC v. City of Peekskill, No. 09 Civ. 5093 (GAY), 2012 WL 4459290 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference for trial where defendant was grossly negligent in its destruction of relevant emails (as proven by Plaintiff?s receipt of relevant emails from third parties that should have been in defendant?s possession, for example, and defendant?s failure to dispute the existence of certain emails which were relevant to plaintiff?s claims but which were not produced); court found defendant was ?at least negligent? in its failure to preserve (and later found that defendant was grossly negligent) where the city had no formal email retention policy and instead relied on its employees to determine what to save: ?Because the City has effectively conceded that it had a duty to preserve the e-mails in question, its failure to maintain a formal e-mail retention policy was at least negligent.?

Nature of Case: Violation of constitutionally protected property rights based on Stop Work Order

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2012