December 1, 2013 – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC v. Angulo, —F.3d—, 2013 WL 2928094 (8th Cir. June 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in giving a spoliation instruction for a party?s failure to preserve satellite tracking information relevant to the whereabouts of its drivers at the time of the at-issue crash, where trial court was ?abundantly clear? that it believed the destruction was intentional, even if it did not specifically say ?bad faith? and where the victim/plaintiff was prejudiced by the failure to preserve; although the sanctioned party did produce a print out alleged to reflect the relevant satellite information, questions regarding the party?s veracity led the court to mistrust the accuracy of the document which contributed to the imposition of sanctions

Nature of Case: Malpractice related to underlying case involving automobile accident and resulting injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Satellite tracking data

Out of the Box Developers LLC v. Logicbit Corp., No. 10 CVS 8327, 2013 WL 3090303 (N.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)

Momentive Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Alexander, No. 2:13-cv-275, 2013 WL 2151477 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to discover whether flash drives containing its sensitive information had been accessed by defendant since he started working for his new employer and also sought production of all relevant information contained on defendant?s laptop, the court indicated that Plaintiff?s expert would be allowed to image and search defendant?s laptop to determine if the flash drives had been accessed and to produce to Plaintiff any ?actual files? from those drives determined to be on defendant?s computer without first allowing defendant to conduct a review for relevance or privilege; as to other relevant documents found on the laptop which were not taken from the at-issue flash drives, the court ordered that any keyword hits be provided to defendant to review before production; to assuage concerns that relevant information would be withheld, court ordered defendant to prepare a log of any documents withheld on relevance grounds to allow the parties to have ?reasoned discussions? regarding those withholdings

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete agreement, misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-cv-0689-MMA (DHB), 2013 WL 2338713 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had standing to challenge city?s subpoena to Verizon Wireless seeking ?any and all records? for Plaintiff?s cellular phone, including texts, instant messages, etc. and found that Verizon was prohibited from disclosing such content by the Federal Stored Communications Act; Verizon was also prohibited from disclosing non-content records where such disclosure to a ?governmental agency? is prohibited; court noted that alternative methods for discovery were available and specifically noted the availability of a Rule 34 request for production

Nature of Case: Claims arising from sexual assault

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular phone records, including content

Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Nektar Therapeutics, No. 1:09-cv-1292 (GLS/CFH0, 2013 WL 2145652 (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for an adverse inference and monetary sanctions related to its allegations of spoliation where the court ?did not agree? that plaintiff was ?grossly negligent? noting that plaintiff ?had in place ? a comprehensive standard document preservation policy, issued both verbal and written litigation hold notices, preserved backup tapes of emails from before commencement, and confirmed that no custodian had deleted any documents related to this matter? and where, the court determined that ?[w]hile there may have been some shortcomings in [plaintiff?s] document retention protocol, it was, at most, negligent? and that the ?discretionary presumption articulated in Residential Funding Corp [306 F.3d 99] d[id] not apply in any event?; court further declared that the spoliation motion failed ?on the ?inability [of Nektar] to adduce evidence suggesting the existence, let alone destruction , of relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mazza v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 1:12 CV 142, 2013 WL 2296657 (N.D. W. Va. May 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought relevant information but failed to sufficiently limit the scope of her requests temporally or geographically, court agreed with defendant that the requests as written were overly broad but found that defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the burden of responding to modified, limited requests would outweigh the benefit or that cost shifting was required and thus ordered defendants to respond to the requests, subject to the courts temporal, geographic, and fact-specific limitations

Nature of Case: Predatory lending

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States ex rel DeKort v. Integrated Coast Guard Sys. LLC, No. 3:06-cv-1792-0 (BF), 2013 WL 1890283 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Noting that ?courts have allowed parties to recover the costs of converting paper documents into electronic files where responsive discovery documents were produced in electronic format,? the court found that defendants could recover $68,829.60 and $24,102.39 respectively ?for creating electronic images of documents responsive to Relator?s discovery requests?

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs for ediscovery

Athome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc?y, No. 1:12-cv-053-BLW, 2013 WL 1819691 (D. Idaho Apr. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of metadata and, noting that Defendant ?would have produced the requested metadata but for an inadvertent change to the creation date on certain documents,? indicated that the real question was ?how to resolve that mistake, which essentially requires the court to apply the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) balancing test;? court considered fact that Defendant ?created the problem? although not in bad faith (?accidents happen?) and further found that the burden of production was not ?all that great? and ordered the production of the requested metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: metadata

Warner v. Chilcott Labs. Ireland Ltd. v. Ipax Labs., Inc., Nos. 08-6304 (WJM), 09-2073(WJM), 09-1233(WJM), 2013 WL 1716468 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought ?the cost of file conversion, Bates labeling, and storing electronic documents produced during litigation,? the clerk taxed only the ?cost of TIFF conversion . . . and the costs of making copies of original dvd?s and the original CD?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI Taxable costs

Gilley v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 3:10-CV-251, 2013 WL 1701066 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to preserve digital images which she claimed she took with her cell phone and her daughter?s cell phone and which she claimed to have received from her daughter via email and later forwarded to her attorney (resulting in several electronic copies of the image(s)), the court found that plaintiff had the obligation to preserve the evidence, that she knew or should have known that the images were relevant, that the images and metadata were in fact relevant, and that sanctions were appropriate and thus imposed a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Digital images

Archive - December 1, 2013