2012 – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Curcio v. Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 3236645 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court noted 2d circuit?s rejection of premise that failure to issue a litigation hold constitutes gross negligence and declined to impose an adverse inference but did impose monetary sanctions for individual?s failure to preserve her own handwritten notes upon finding that she acted in a negligent manner in preserving those notes; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions against ?Roosevelt Defendants? (the District and the Board) for failure to preserve audio tapes that were contaminated with lead and asbestos while in storage and thus discarded ?through no fault? of the Defendants and imposed no sanctions for late production of relevant information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, handwritten notes, miscellaneous

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Gottlieb v. Iskowitz, 2012 Wl 2337290 (Cal. Ct. App. June 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Appellate court found that trial court did not abuse discretion in imposing terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s egregious and willful discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce responsive materials in violation of the court?s multiple orders and subsequent ?dump? of 15 million pages of uncategorized documents that were not Bates labeled or accompanied by a corresponding index and which appeared to be largely non-responsive based on a review of 10% of the documents (?A dump of disorganized documents by definition is non-compliant.?); trial court?s award of significant damages was reversed and remanded for a new default proveup hearing on damages

Nature of Case: Libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kravtsov v Town of Greenburgh, No. 10-cv-3142 (CS), 2012 WL 2719663 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance video despite notice of plaintiff?s claim and a request for preservation was at least grossly negligent in light of the failure to implement a litigation hold, the delay between the request for the video and efforts to retrieve it, and the ?collective ignorance? of the people who should have know how the surveillance system worked (the time stamp was set for the wrong time zone resulting in collection of the wrong footage?a mistake that was not discovered until the relevant footage had been recorded over) and where the court determined that because of the grossly negligent conduct, ?relevance [was] determined as a matter of law,? the court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference and payment of related costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Claims of discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, and religion, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and denial of a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff?s disability

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns LLC, —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 2371426 (D.D.C. June 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff served a subpoena seeking identifying information related to one defendant and 350 ?co-conspirators? who plaintiff alleged engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully download Plaintiff?s movie (using the BitTorrent protocol) and Comcast objected on the grounds of undue burden, among other things, the D.C. Court (the court from which the subpoena was issued) treated Comcast?s objections as a motion to quash and found that the burden of issuing the subpoena would result in undue burden to Comcast, to the defendant and to the 350 ?co-conspirators? who did not reside in the forum because they would be subjected to undue inconvenience of litigating any objections in a ?distant forum? and denied Plaintiff?s request but, recognizing Plaintiff?s efforts and interest in litigating the case, ordered Comcast to provide information related to alleged co-conspirators city and state of residence, but not identifying information, which Comcast could do without undue burden and which would allow plaintiff to seek the identifying information of the alleged co-conspirators in the jurisdiction in which they lived

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information related to ISP subscribers

Linnebur v. United Telephone Assoc., Inc., No. 10-1379-RDR, 2012 WL 2370110 (D. Kan. June 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was able to establish that defendant destroyed ESI while under a duty to preserve but was unable to establish that she was actually prejudiced by the loss, the court denied Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions without prejudice and, noting that it was ?troubled? by Defendant?s preservation failures and counsel?s apparent failure to oversee his client?s discovery efforts, the court sua sponte reopened discovery solely as to the issue of spoliation

Nature of Case: Unlawful termination under Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 08cv1392-JLS(NLS), 2012 WL 28289 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants? mistake in searching resulted in the failure to produce relevant documents and where plaintiff alleged that those documents would have established numerosity for purposes of his motion to certify (and where the motion was denied without them), court found that the mistake was not willful or in bad faith and that there was no prejudice where plaintiff was free to re-file his motion and thus, as a sanction, awarded limited attorneys? fees incurred as the result of defendants? mistake and noted plaintiff?s failure to timely review the documents produced by defendants, which may have alerted him to the problems prior to filing his motion for class certification

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, No. 10-CV-00569A(F), 2012 WL 95362 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff acted to avoid compliance with court?s order to produce information related to email accounts, including passwords, by repeatedly filing motions to stay discovery and by modifying the consent forms related to the examination of his email accounts to effectively delay the search, despite the court?s denial of his motions to stay discovery, the court ordered civil contempt sanctions and ordered plaintiff to pay $5,000 to the court and also ordered payment of defendants? attorneys? fees and costs related to Defendants? Accelerated Motion to Compel, necessitated by plaintiff?s dilatory behavior

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Access to emails (passwords, etc.) for forensic examination

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

Archive - 2012