December 2014 – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

Siggers v. Campbell, No. 07-12495, 2014 WL 4978648 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding that litigation hold was not put into place until more than four years after complaint was filed, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that defendant deleted any documents or evidence, or acted with an intent to conceal or destroy evidence, there was no evidence that defendant routinely exchanged email correspondence about plaintiff with others, and the vigorous work of plaintiff?s appointed counsel led to only one responsive email being produced; plaintiff would be allowed to question defendant at trial about her failure to timely impose a litigation hold and about other matters related to plaintiff?s assertion that she must have had relevant email communications that no longer exist

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner civil rights claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mkg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, MDL No. 2100, 2014 WL 4961490 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied Rule 502 to conclude that disclosure of privileged slide presentations was inadvertent and did not waive attorney-client privilege; court ordered plaintiffs to return presentations and all copies to defendants and destroy all work product reflecting content from presentations, and directed clerk of court to strike from the court?s record certain exhibits containing references to the presentations

Nature of Case: 32 class actions relating to at least one of the drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin

Electronic Data Involved: Presentation prepared by defendants’ in-house counsel to convey legal advice to corporate employees and other presentations in which another employee conveyed the legal advice from the in-house counsel presentation to other corporate employees

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, 95 A.3d 1264 (Del. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Delaware Supreme Court affirmed rulings of Court of Chancery in all respects, finding no error in setting the range of dates for production, requiring Wal-Mart to produce officer-level documents, requiring Wal-Mart to collect and search data from disaster recovery backup tapes for two additional custodians where Wal-Mart had voluntarily collected disaster tape recovery data for nine other custodians, and invoking the exception articulated in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), to find that IBEW was entitled to documents protected by attorney-client privilege and work product protection in Section 220 litigation

Nature of Case: Pursuant to title 8, section 220 of the Delaware Code, shareholder brought action against corporation for production of documents related to alleged bribery scandal

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster recovery tapes for certain records custodians and documents related to company’s compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Lemon Juice v. Twitter, Inc., No. 502898/14, 2014 WL 4287049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where unknown person created Twitter account in plaintiff?s name and in violation of criminal court’s order took photo of child victim in court testifying against her tormentor and posted it to Twitter account, court ruled that plaintiff had met his burden of demonstrating a meritorious claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the discovery sought from Twitter was needed in order to identify who should be named as a defendant, and that anonymous Twitter account creator?s behavior constituted an actionable tort and was not speech covered by First Amendment protection such that anonymity of creator had to yield to plaintiff?s need to redress the actionable wrong perpetrated against him; court directed Twitter to disclose basic subscriber information, records, internet protocol addresses and other similar information sufficient to identify owner of the bogus Twitter account and to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) seeking an order directing Twitter to preserve certain evidence and to disclose certain information

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter subscriber information sufficient to identify the individual(s) who owned or operated particular Twitter account and logged into or “tweeted” on the account

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 4437684 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied as moot defendants’ request for plaintiffs’ consent to release emails stored with third party vendors Earthlink and AT&T in light of vendors? representations that, when an Earthlink.net or ATT.net user deletes an email from Outlook, the email simultaneously is deleted from the vendor’s server and cannot be recovered; magistrate judge also denied plaintiffs’ request for defendants to produce a merged data set, where one data set had 157 columns and was extracted from third-party provider?s system, and second set had more information but used different field identifiers, since a party cannot be compelled to create a document for its production and the creation of requested data compilation would inherently require the creation of a ?document,? and producing party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form

Nature of Case: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, data

Pettit v. Smith, No. CV-11-02139-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 4425779 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court ruled that under the special circumstances of the case and notwithstanding that it was not a party to the litigation, Arizona Department of Corrections had duty to preserve the missing evidence, its failure to do so was at least grossly negligent, evidence was plainly relevant and plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by its loss; court declined to impose case-terminating sanctions against individual defendants but would allow parties to present evidence and argument about the lost evidence and would instruct jury that ADC had a duty to preserve evidence, ADC did not preserve the evidence, and jurors may infer that lost evidence would have been favorable to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Inmate alleged correctional officers used excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of event, photograph of plaintiff’s hand, and other documentary evidence

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681035 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2014 WL 4681403) but sustained two of plaintiffs? objections to Google?s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal, ruling that the search should include not only each plaintiff?s network from which communications may have been sent, but also any other network on which plaintiffs? communications might have been received, and that plaintiffs should see the results of the special master?s searches in order to provide the special master with feedback to aid in subsequent searches

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where district court had authorized limited discovery on the issue of standing, and parties disagreed on scope and method of search of data, magistrate judge concluded that the most efficient method was through the appointment of a special master as it would (1) permit a technical expert to review all the data in a timely and effective manner, (2) limit collateral attacks and claims of bias that were likely to result if either party conducted the search, and (3) protect any interests that parties not before the court might have, given plaintiffs’ claims that the data contains private information; magistrate judge recommended appointment of special master and further recommended using Google’s ?Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal? for selection of the special master, development of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Riley v. Marriott Int?l, Inc., No. 12-CV-6242P, 2014 WL 4794657 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where hotel’s security system recorded elevator area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall, but hotel produced only seven minutes of footage, which began about one minute before the accident and ended before plaintiff was removed from the ground and placed into a wheelchair, and hotel offered no sworn facts concerning the circumstances under which the footage was destroyed, court found hotel was grossly negligent at minimum and concluded that permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate and sufficient to deter hotel from similar future conduct and restore plaintiff’s position in the litigation

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Security camera footage of area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall

In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 7082, MDL No. 1997, 2014 WL 4343286 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After granting summary judgment to defendants, court evaluated defendants’ bills of costs under Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) and sustained plaintiffs’ objections to several categories of defendants’ claimed e-discovery expenses because they did not constitute the cost of “making copies” under Section 1920(4), but were preparatory steps that occurred prior to copying or occurred after copying, e.g., electronic data “processing” expenses, “quality check” expenses, OCR costs, ?tech time,? ?data capture,? ?master CD replication,? costs associated with processing or creation of a “load file,” or cost of software packages used in production process; costs of converting native files to TIFF were recoverable

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed price-fixing among providers of text messaging services

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 2014