December 1, 2013 – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Petition of John W. Danforth Group, Inc, No. 13-MC033S, 2013 WL 3324017 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where petitioner sought to perpetuate evidence and an order of preservation pursuant to Rule 27 in light of an anticipated witness?s untruthfulness about his use of social media and refusal to turn over his personal mobile phone or to allow for a backup to be made absent a court order, the court declined to issue such an order where Rule 27 relief should be granted ?only in special circumstances to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost? and where the petitioner?s ?generalized statements of concern? were insufficient to warrant pre-complaint intervention

Nature of Case: Pre-complaint order of preservation

Electronic Data Involved: Anticipated witness’s mobile device

Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 09 C 243, 2013 WL 1966363 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs related to making one set of copies of the at issue documents, including bates labeling , but found that the city had ?not met its burden of establishing that the additional expenses, including scanning, OCR, and the production of a master DVD, were reasonably necessary under ? 1920(4)?

Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation under Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs

EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. C-12-04306 JST (JSC), 2013 WL 2181584 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing parties? proposed departures from the court?s Model Protective Order, court approved protocol requiring Plaintiff?s reviewers to utilize an encrypted computer provided by Apple to conduct review of source code, including taking notes, and a ban on cell phones and other recording devices while reviewing source code (Apple promised to provide a land line); court declined to modify the Model Order?s provisions regarding printing source code, which place the burden of persuasion on the requesting party when a request for paper copies is challenged; court declined to include provision allowing Plaintiff to make electronic copies of source code and approved Defendant?s proposal requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding any electronic submission of source code; court approved provision requiring Plaintiff to return or destroy any documents containing source code at end of litigation

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: source code

Shawback v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 3:11-cv-00243 JWS, 2013 WL 3306078 (D. Alaska July 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff?s failure to preserve communications and other evidence related to her job search (related to her mitigation of damages) and where Plaintiff?s counsel explained that many of the job-seeking activities were undertaken electronically and did not result in emails to be preserved, the court reasoned that Plaintiff?s degree of fault with respect to the online services was ?not large,? that allowing her to testify that she ?periodically? reviewed job lists and ?sometimes? clicked on the links was not ?seriously prejudicial,? and that the sanctions sought were disproportional and thus ordered that Plaintiff could not testify regarding specific job inquiries absent documentation of that inquiry and that she could not testify that she applied for one-hundred or more jobs, but indicated that Plaintiff would be allowed to testify that she looked at jobs periodically and sometimes clicked on the links and to testify regarding job applications for which she provided documentation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Data related to online job searching

In re Denture Care Prods. Liab. Litig., 292 F.R.D. 120 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found information sought in third party subpoena was relevant, that production of documents with missing pages or emails without their attachments did not comply with Rule 45, that subpoena was not unduly burdensome, and that forensic investigation of third party?s computers was not yet warranted in spite of ?discrepancies and inconsistencies? in their production, but warned that third party could be required to bear the cost of forensic investigation of their computers if they failed to comply with court?s order to produce all responsive documents

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dombrowski v. Lumpkin Cnty., No. 2:11-CV-276-RWS-JCF, 2013 WL 2099137 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to impose adverse inference for Defendant?s alleged failure to issue a litigation hold where Plaintiff failed to establish bad faith and failed to establish that ?critical or crucial evidence was destroyed??addressing the presence of bad faith, court noted that Defendants? email practices, i.e., that the individual defendant frequently deleted his emails and that once placed in the trash, they were automatically deleted after two weeks, resulted in Plaintiff?s claims gaining ?little traction? in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e); court declined to impose adverse inference for the alleged destruction of ?unidentified documents? where plaintiff ?failed to carry her burden of showing bad faith? and also failed to establish that she had ?suffered prejudice as a result of the missing documents?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination; defamation; intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165 (6th Cit. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Citing a court?s discretion in determining the strength of any adverse inference to be applied and noting that such a decision is determined on a case by case basis, the appellate court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a permissive rather than a non-rebuttable adverse inference for the defendants? bad faith spoliation of email

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc., —P.3d—, 2013 WL 3007776 (Mont. June 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in failing to sanction Defendant for destruction of Plaintiff?s emails and other data following his termination where Plaintiff failed to make any showing of ?an attempt to conceal evidence or bad faith? and where the emails were discarded pursuant to a ?pre-existing and routine practice? before Defendant had knowledge of potential litigation (pending administrative proceeding for unemployment benefits did not put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff?s files would become relevant to a civil proceeding)

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other data on work computer

St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. v. Tormey, No. 11-cv-00327, 2013 WL 3270374 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for alleged fabrication of evidence and violation of the court’s order to produce certain hardware (computers, hard drives) related to the alleged fabrication but denied sanctions where Defendant consistently claimed he had no additional hardware to be produced and consistently stuck with his explanations related to the creation of the allegedly fabricated documents and surrounding circumstances; regarding fabrication, court explained that ?Discrepancies and inconsistencies without more, however, do not necessarily fabrication make.?; as to both spoliation and fabrication court indicated it would be up to the jury to decide who to believe

Nature of Case: Claims related to loan repayment and whether loan to defendant was forgiven in “walk-away” agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drives

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Brudnicki, No. 5:12-cv-00398-RS-GRJ, 2013 WL 2948098 (N.D. Fla. June 14, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where discovery would be asymmetrical and Plaintiff would be producing the majority of documents in the case, court approved a protocol that would require the parties to cooperate to develop search terms to identify potentially relevant documents to be uploaded to a database for Defendant?s review for the purpose of identifying documents to be produced and which would require Defendant to pay $.06 per page produced and $225 monthly for each gigabyte uploaded into the database; court held cost-shifting was appropriate where Plaintiff had already identified and collected the potentially responsive information at great expense and compared the $.06 charge to photocopying costs in traditional discovery and also cited and considered the factors of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provide authority for cost shifting and ?strongly supported? the Plaintiff?s proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Action against Bank’s former directors for negligence and gross negligence related to approval of 11 transactions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in FDIC database

Archive - December 1, 2013