December 1, 2012 – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

Rudolph v. Beacon Indep. Living, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-617-FDW-DSC, 2012 WL 2804114 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that Defendant instructed a non-party witness to delete relevant emails on his computer and that the non-party complied, court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions and ordered that defendant and the non-party preserve all ESI going forward, that defendant and the non-party submit their computers for forensic examination to recover deleted emails and to gather native format versions of information previously produced ?as fixed images,? that defendant pay the cost of the forensic examinations, and that defendant bear plaintiffs? attorneys costs and fees for preparing the underlying motion

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Crop Data Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Software Solutions Integrated LLC, No. 2:11-cv-01437 LKK KJN, 2012 WL 2571201 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?complete forensic imaging and an open ended computer inspection of all of defendants ?electronically stored information?? where the court found the request was overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome and costly in light of the time and cost of the necessary privilege reviews by defendants and other expenses associated with the business interruption of such inspections, where ?plaintiff ha[d] not reasonably attempted to obtain the information it [sought] short of the proposed, burdensome computer investigation,? and where it was ?highly improbable? that the parties could complete the inspection by the close of discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of computers and servers

Chen v. New Trend Apparel, No. 11 Civ. 324 (GBD) (MHD), 2012 WL 4784855 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of defendants? computers reasoning that such inspections are granted only under limited circumstances ?when there is reason to believe that a litigant has tampered with the computer or hidden relevant materials despite demand for them in the course of the lawsuit or when the possession or use of the computer is an element of the parties’ claims or defenses? and further reasoning that movants made no showing to justify their request, particularly where certain information they sought had already been provided

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

In re Specs, No. C 10-04250 YGR (DMR), 2012 WL 4120246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court ordered sanctions for Plaintiffs? violation of a court order compelling production where Plaintiffs certified their production was complete and thereafter made at least four additional significant productions such that the court concluded that Plaintiffs? certification of completeness was either ?knowingly false, or ? made without confirming the adequacy of their collection and production efforts? and ordered payment of reasonable expenses including attorneys fees and that Plaintiffs file certification that their discovery is complete and that any documents produced thereafter could not be used by Plaintiff at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Abode Sys., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4092568 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs, court approved recovery of costs for scanning but, citing the Third Circuit decision in Race Tires Am. Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Corp., held that ?document collection, processing, and hosting? were not ?recoverable costs? and also held that, where the parties agreed that TIFF images were an acceptable form of production, but not required, the conversion was not ?necessarily obtained for use in the case? and thus related costs were not taxable under ? 1920; court indicated in footnote that had TIFF been the only agreed upon format of production, the outcome may have been different

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 3307364 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Gray v. Novell, Inc., No. 8:06-CV-1950-T-33TGW, 2012 WL 3886026 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to explain why conversion and printing of all of plaintiff?s electronically produced discovery was necessary, court declined to allow defendant to recover those costs

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to printing of ESI

Stooksbury v. Ross, No. 3:09-CV-498, 2012 WL 3779113 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing post-judgment discovery issues, including plaintiff and receiver?s request to have certain hard drives imaged, court rejected defendants? claim that certain computers contained privileged information where those assets were sold to a third-party and thus any privilege was waived; court further ordered that personal computer and ipad belonging to an individual defendant should be imaged for preservation purposes, to be retained by the expert performing such imaging pending further orders from the court

Electronic Data Involved: Business and personal hard drives and ipad

Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 (CBA), 2012 WL 3705001 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, seeking data related to the number of times and when defendant logged onto plaintiff?s accounting system, defendant paid for an expert to restore damaged media but found no responsive data thereon and where plaintiff thereafter sought access to the damaged media to conduct its own search, the court indicated it would not allow a fishing expedition, but that if plaintiff wanted to bear the costs of duplicating defendant?s restoration and search efforts, it could retain a neutral third-party expert to do so, limited to a search of specifically identified folders; as to an inoperable drive that the parties previously agreed would be considered inaccessible, court would allow plaintiff to pay for neutral third party?s examination to perform a limited review; court declined to compel affidavit from defendant indicating specific steps to locate and preserve relevant data

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive and copies of same

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3656454 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a myriad of discovery disputes related to privilege logs, format of production, adequacy of plaintiff?s search for responsive materials, and the adequacy of its responses to defendant?s requests and ruled, among other things, that: plaintiff?s production in PDF was unacceptable and that production must be in native format or in the format requested by defendant and that plaintiff?s counsel?s statements (related to the court by sworn affidavit from defendant) were sufficient to put the adequacy of his compliance with Rule 26(g) in question and require production of plaintiff?s search strategy, including its interaction with counsel; court also compelled responses to a myriad of individual requests and ordered plaintiff to pay 80% of defendant?s fees in bringing this motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2012