December 1, 2015 – Electronic Discovery Law

e-Discovery Rules: US Court of International Trade, US Tax Court, US Court of Federal Claims

Dec 01 2015

Rules of the U.S. Court of International Trade
Rule 16 Postassignment Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Rule 26 Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Rule 33 Interrogatories to Parties
Rule 34 Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Rule 37 Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Rule 45 Subpoena

United States Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure
Rule 70 General Provisions
Rule 71 Interrogatories
Rule 72 Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things
Rule 82 Depositions Before Commencement of Case
Rule 103 Protective Orders
Rule 104 Enforcement Action and Sanctions
Rule 147 Subpoenas

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
Rule 16 Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Rule 26 Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Rule 33 Interrogatories to Parties
Rule 34 Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Rule 37 Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Rule 45 Subpoena

Today is the Day! Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective Dec. 1, 2015

Dec 01 2015

The wait is over. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are effective today.

The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are significant and will have a direct impact on the day to day practice of law, particularly discovery. If you’ve been putting off your review of the amendments, the time for action is now! Take a few minutes (or a few hours) to review these important amendments and/or attend one of K&L Gates’ two live events to learn more! (Live events are also available via webinar.)

CLICK HERE for an overview of the rules amendments package.

To register for K&L Gates’ complimentary CLE, “Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery – Are You Ready This Time?” follow the links below:

CLICK HERE to attend LIVE! in Seattle: Dec. 1, 2015, 1:30 PM -5:30 (with post-program reception)

CLICK HERE to attend LIVE! in Pittsburgh: Dec. 3, 2015, 8:30 AM-12:15

Can’t Attend in Person? Email Allison Peterson (allison.peterson@klgates.com) to attend via Webinar. Log-in instructions will be emailed to you.

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., Inc, No. 3:15-mc-11-K-BN, 2015 WL 12731762 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge concluded that absent evidence of a special relationship or circumstance that imposed a duty to preserve evidence, a third party did not have an obligation to preserve evidence before it was served with a subpoena, even though it was aware of potential litigation against a party with whom it had a close working relationship. Where the non-party was ordered to search for and produce all responsive information but limited its search to its ShareFile and failed to adequately investigate whether responsive information existed on its computers and other devices, the Magistrate judge reasoned that compliance required more than ?simply asking current employees if they have responsive documents? and concluded that third party?s mere survey of current employees (omitting an employee with a difficult personality) as to whether they had responsive emails without an attempt to search or forensically image any devices in its custody failed to satisfy the Discovery Order?s request to make ?all reasonable efforts to search? for potentially relevant documents, violating Rule 45(g).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Salyer, No. 14-14337-CIV-ROSENBERG/LYNCH, 2015 WL 12778793 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel forensic examination of Defendant?s ?personal computer devices and his personal email account? where Defendant claimed that his mobile phone was damaged, that a thumb drive was lost, and that his laptop stopped working, and where Defendant failed to search his email and gave inaccurate ?representations? about it; court admonished Plaintiff ?to give special care? to Defendant?s privacy and ordered that Defendant was allowed to be present for the search, and that the search criteria be prepared in advance and chosen to limit the scope to matters ?directly relevant to its claims for relief?

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computer, devices, email

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, NOo. 5:14-CV-5262, 2015 WL 11120890 (W.D. Ark. April 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to produce in native format but Defendant then loaded its information into a hosted database and indicated that Plaintiff could view the docs, including some metadata, but could only receive production of specified documents in a static image format, at a cost for each such ?exportation,? and where Defendant argued such production complied with Rule 26(f) and that the data was in a reasonably usable form, the court held the parties to their agreement, reasoning that ?[s]imply put, native format means native format? and also rejected Defendant?s security concerns, agreeing with Plaintiff that production on an external hard drive was acceptable; court?s order stated that parties would ?produce discovery from electronic or computer-based media directly to each other in native format, on external hard drives whenever possible.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S.E.C. v. Blackburn, No. 15-2451-CJB-SS, 2015 WL 10911438 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: No waiver of privilege resulting from inadvertent production (as a result of legal assistant?s accidental attachment of the wrong email folder when preparing initial disclosures) where steps to prevent disclosure were reasonable, including custodian?s specific identification of privileged material and trial attorney?s review of all non-privileged docs to be produced and where trial attorney immediately addressed inadvertent disclosure upon her discovery of it and return to her office

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Donley v Donley, 2015 Ark. App. 496 (Ark. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting screen shots from Defendant?s ex-boyfriend?s Facebook account where the appellate court determined that Defendant?s admission that she was ?Meka Rochelle? – the at-issue commenter shown in the screen shots – and admissions that she authored one of the comments and that she was the person depicted in the photos ?sufficiently tie[d] her to the comments and the photos? and that Defendant?s claim that she did not recall making the comments went to weight , not admissibility

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media (Facebook)

Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 965 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to compel Plaintiffs? production of all discovery produced by any party in the case for Defendant?s use where Defendant failed without adequate explanation to maintain all such documents throughout the pendency of litigation due, perhaps, to changes in ownership and legal representation and where Plaintiffs? compilation of such information was work product, but ordered Plaintiff to produce from its database any specifically identified documents at Defendant?s cost

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of Plaintiffs’ discovery database (i.e., the collection of discovery produced by any party during the litigation)

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-740-Orl-41TBS, 2015 WL 1470971 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff produced documents ?en masse? without any indication of what was produced or what request the documents were responsive to and claimed that they were produced as kept in the usual course of business and thus in compliance with Rule 34, the court reasoned that a party who produces documents as kept in the usual course has the burden of proving they were in fact produced in that manner and that a party may not wait until a motion to compel is filed to provide that information and concluded that Plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and ordered that Plaintiff must identify by Bates number which documents were responsive to each request

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2015