December 2012 – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Danny Lynn Elec. V. Veolia Es Solid Waste, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 WL 786843 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

McGrath v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 658 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court ordered adoption of parties? proposed order concerning the management of electronic discovery which contained ?some but not all? of the provision of the [Model] Order drafted by the Federal Circuit and indicated its additional consideration of the [Model] Order adopted by the E.D. Texas

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ohio Valley Environ. Coalition, Inc. v U.S. Army Corps of Eng?gs, No. 1:11MC35, 2012 WL 112325 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where non-party represented that responding to subpoena would be burdensome in light of need to comb through vast amounts of ESI which had not been organized in anticipation of litigation, court determined such representations constituted ?blanket assertions? but failed to meet the high burden of showing, with particularity, the source and extent of the burden claimed and declined to quash the subpoena for that reason

Electronic Data Involved: Research materials from university professor

City of Alameda, CA v. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund, Nos. C 08-4575 SI; C 09-1437 SI, 2012 WL 17756 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found costs related to ?OCR and metadata extraction? were not recoverable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Commercial Law Corp., P.C., v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., NO. 10-13275, 2012 WL 137835 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding metadata related to documents at issue was relevant to the action and that a forensic search of the computers used to generate the documents was ?an appropriate method to locate and extract that information,? but recognizing that at least one of the computers belonged to an attorney, court fashioned a protocol that allowed for forensic examination of the computers while simultaneously protecting potentially privileged information thereon

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

In re Subpoena to Creeden & Assocs., No. 12C 5573, 2012 WL 4580841 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s motion to enforce a subpoena, the court focused on the issue of the burden to the third party and granted plaintiff?s motion as to the requests for production with some limitations and also conducted an 8-part cost shifting analysis which resulted in the court?s order that plaintiff was to bear 60 of the third party?s ?staff research and production costs? and 30 of the third party?s ?legal costs?; court indicated that the ?lower legal percentage [was] a reflection of what the Court believe[d] was [the third-party?s] recalcitrance to meaningfully participate in legal negotiations concerning discovery thus far? and that ?[t]he lower legal fee-shifting amount is also an attempt to get [the third party] to object only to those points it really cares about?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Rawal v. United Air Lines Inc., No. 07 C 5561, 2012 WL 581146 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to taxation of costs related to processing email accounts and other files into searchable format where the services were performed by the ?litigation support department? of defendant?s outside counsel and went ?far beyond the mere reproduction or exemplification of documents? and instead comprised the ?kind of work conventionally performed by attorneys and paralegals, the costs of which are not recoverable?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation

In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database

Spanish Peaks Lodge, LLC v. KeyBank National Assoc., No. 10-453, 2012 WL 895465 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Acknowledging the ?flexible and fact-specific? nature of the question of reasonable forseeability, the court addressed several possible triggers for the duty to preserve but ultimately determined that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the duty to preserve was reasonably foreseeable at the time defendant implemented its document retention policy or that defendant should have reasonably anticipated litigation and therefore denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions

Kruse Tech. P?ship v. Daimler AG, No. SACV 10-1066 JVS (RNBx), 2012 WL 12888668 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant moved to re-tax $202K of costs for exemplification and reproduction that were denied by the clerk. The court found that costs of copies provided to Defendant?s witnesses were not necessary or taxable because they were not requested by or tendered to the opposing party, as discussed in In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court allowed $12.013.68 in XDD?s costs for converting documents to TIFF, performing OCR (required by court order) and producing the documents to Plaintiff. Defendant argued costs from third-party vendor IAV for storage of responsive documents and processes to allow digital searching of Defendant?s databases should have been allowed by the clerk. Plaintiff argued these were costs for collection and review of documents, rather than for copying. Plaintiff also argued the OCR fees were duplicative and that Defendant?s invoices did not provide sufficient detail to support taxation. The court found these costs were not taxable (searching and organizing rather than copying, as well as duplicative) and properly denied by the clerk.

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 2012