December 2012 – Page 23 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that ?producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,? but also found that in the present case the District Court abused its discretion ?in ruling that, within its spoliation analysis, Bull intentionally withheld the original documents from UPS? and further abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction of dismissal with prejudice

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of hardcopy doctor’s notes

Brocade Commc?ns Sys. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 10-CV-03428-LHK, 2012 WL 70428 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff had shown good cause for requiring production of ?not reasonably accessible information,? the court granted plaintiff?s motion to inspect an individual defendant?s hard drive noting that such inspections had been allowed by other courts in cases of alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and further citing the relevance of the hard drive?s contents to the underlying claims, the inability to obtain the evidence elsewhere, and defendant?s inability to explain its statement that the hard drive in question had been ?recycled?; court held that plaintiff was ?not entitled to set the conditions of the inspection unilaterally nor select the person who will perform it? and ordered the parties to confer to agree on a protocol

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Custom Hardware Eng?g & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell, No. 4:10CV00653 ERW, 2011 WL 10496 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Relying heavily on Ameriwood Industries v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006), court ordered the discovery of ESI on defendant?s computers in accordance with three-step procedure: 1) imaging of hard drive by forensic expert, 2) recovery of ESI from that image, 3) defense counsel?s review and production of responsive non-privilege information; upon parties? disagreement regarding search terms to be utilized in step three, court rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff?s proposed terms would result in an ?unreasonable number of irrelevant results? and the production of privilege information and also rejected defendant?s proposed search terms as too narrow, where defendant proposed that only exact matches, including in capitalization and phrasing, be considered

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropria-tion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Archive - December 2012