December 2013 – Page 10 – Electronic Discovery Law

Brown v. West Corp., No. 8:11CV284, 2013 WL 6263632 (D. Neb. Dec. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions related to automatic deletion of email backups where no email from the time of Plaintiff?s separation from the defendant existed on that system because of the passage of time and where the automatic deletions did not affect any emails saved on individual employees? computers – who had been instructed to preserve relevant information; court also declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of files on former employees? computers where Defendant claimed the computers contained no relevant information that had not already been produced and where the repurposing of the computers was apparently undertaken in good faith; upholding magistrate judge?s prior discovery orders, court noted the magistrate judge?s recognition that although some of the custodians from which plaintiff sought discovery may have relevant information, ?a few pointed questions in a deposition were less burdensome than grasping at the periphery by reviewing thousands or tens of thousands of e-mails in the hope of discovering a limited number of interactions that might, together, indicate something about whether discrimination played a role in the actions at the center of this case?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, computer files of former employees

Teledyne Instruments, Inc. v. Cairns, No. 6:12-cv-854-Orl-28TBS, 2013 WL 5781274 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to inspect Defendants? computers and devices based on discrepancies discovered between metadata produced by Defendants and metadata extracted by Plaintiff?s expert, court denied the motion upon the explanation that system metadata and application metadata are not always the same and where Plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the discrepancies were cause for concern; court undertook extended discussion of format of production issues related to production ?in the ordinary course of business? and found that Defendants? production of native files (both email and other ESI) with an accompanying spreadsheet providing additional information related to where the documents were kept and how they were organized was sufficient, but, as to ?converted files and non-ESI documents,? ordered a production log identifying to which request each was responsive;? court ordered Plaintiff to produce a categorical privilege log

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard copy

Smyth v. Merchants Credit Corp., No. C 11-1879RSL, 2013 WL 5200811 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel re-production of data in native format where no form of production was requested and where the producing non-party had already produced responsive information in hard copy

Nature of Case: debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sophia & Chloe, Inc. v. Brighton Collectibles, Inc., No. 12cv2472-AJB(KSC), 2013 WL 5212013 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s request for forensic examinations of certain of Defendant?s computers, despite Defendant?s failure to produce internal communications regarding the allegedly infringing jewelry designs where, despite acknowledging Plaintiff?s suspicions, there was no concrete evidence of ?concealment, destruction of evidence, or failure to preserve documents and information? and where Plaintiff was able to explore its suspicions through other ?written and oral discovery tools?

Nature of Case: Copyright and Trademark infringement and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

SJS Distribution Sys., Inc. v. Sam?s East, Inc., No. 11 CV 1229(WFK)(RML), 2013 WL 5596010 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: For Plaintiff?s failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and other ESI (including the failure to issue a litigation hold) despite its duty to preserve (which was triggered upon its discovery of alleged packaging discrepancies in diaper shipments delivered by the defendant), the court declined to preclude Plaintiff from offering certain evidence, noting the lack of bad faith, but ordered an adverse inference stating that Plaintiff negligently deleted relevant emails that would have been favorable to the defendant and for Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs associated with the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims related to packaging discrepancies in diapers delivered to Plaintiff that were intended for resale

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust v. UBS Real Estate Secs. Inc., No. 12 Civ. 7322(HB)(JCF), 2013 WL 5651290 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where review of sample of unproduced documents revealed possibility that more responsive documents had been missed than had been produced, court ordered producing party to re-review at-issue custodians? files and to confer with requesting party regarding expansion of search terms; court rejected producing party?s arguments that its initial review was ??on par with and likely more accurate than typical document reviews,? citing cases and studies finding that human reviewers are disconcertingly error-prone? reasoning in part that producing party ?can, and has, utilized review technologies that can, if used properly, be expected to identify more than a mere half of the potentially responsive documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, declaratory judgment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Whiteamire Clinic, P.A., Inc. v. Quill Corp., No. 12 C 5490, 2013 WL 5348377 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes

Soffer v. Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01407-JAD-GWF, 2013 WL 4499011 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court indicated that dispute over whether to compel Defendants to conduct additional searches in an expanded date range turned on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and the question of whether the burden outweighed the likely benefit but, citing Plaintiff?s prior offer to more narrowly tailor the search terms to be utilized and to contribute to the reasonable costs of Defendants? review, ordered the parties to meet to attempt to reach agreement on a more focused search and to negotiate a reasonable cost sharing agreement and indicated that the court would consider shifting ?an appropriate share of the costs of production? once a determination of the cost was made

Nature of Case: Interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Heitzman v. Engelstad, No. 12-cv-2274 (MJD/LIB), 2013 WL 4519403 (D. Minn. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena seeking the production of documents reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she could not ?otherwise obtain access to the documents requested,? and further reasoned that ?even if the documents sought might be relevant? (which was questionable), the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it sought documents and correspondence going back 7 years, when the incident at issue occurred 11 months ago, and because it commanded production of ?all? such documents and made ?no allowance? for materials protected by privilege. In quashing the subpoena, the court also noted the availability of many of the public documents sought from the state court record.

Nature of Case: False arrest and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party’s documents and emails

Maximum Human Performance, LLC v. Sigma-Tau Healthscience LLC, No 12-cv-6526-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 4537790 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 2013