December 2015 – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Robertson v. People Magazine, No. 14 Civ. 6759 (PAC), 2015 WL 9077111 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 16, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed motion to compel and held that requests were burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and irrelevant to Plaintiff?s claims reasoning that Plaintiff?s requests for ?nearly unlimited access to People?s editorial files? would ?extend far beyond the scope of Plaintiff?s claims and would significantly burden Defendants?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Split Cove, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., No. 12-cv-639-wmc, 2015 WL 9593630 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Following discussion of prior decisions in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th and federal circuit courts, the District Court adopted ?the [Third Circuit?s] Race Tires approach, with the caveat that the costs of copying metadata and hard drives be included for reasons stated well [by the Federal Circuit and the Sixth Circuit] in CBT Flint and Colosi? and reduced the award of costs related to e-Discovery ?to include only costs for Bates stamping, shipping and delivery of electronic documents, native file and email conversions, and TIFF image creation and conversion?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs of e-Discovery

Evans v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., No. 4:13-cv-00987-RBH, 2015 WL 9455580 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Reasoning that the ?issues of whether the alleged computer file ever existed and, if it did, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to the anticipated litigation, and whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the computer file rests on credibility determinations that this Court is not in a position make at this stage? and noting the ?disputed facts at issue,? the court indicated its inclination to ?to provide the jury with appropriate guidelines and instructions so that they, after hearing all of the evidence, can resolve any credibility questions and make a determination, first, as to whether the alleged computer file even existed on Plaintiff?s computer, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigations, and, if so, whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the file? and invited the parties to submit proposed jury instructions

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2015 WL 8543639 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding defendant and counsel in violation of Rule 26(g) for failing to adequately search for discovery (and for their misrepresentations about those efforts), court instructed that ?Rule 26(g) should not be treated like the proverbial stepchild? and that ?Lawyers should not act like ?potted plants? and accept implausible representations from clients . . . .? and also found that sanctions were warranted pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) for defendant?s violation of the court?s order to produce; accordingly the court imposed sanctions and admonished defendant and counsel for their violation of Rule 26(g) and awarded Plaintiff their fees and costs incurred to obtain the discovery

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged plan to terminate franchise agreements

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7158212 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Defendant to search for documents from non-U.S. points of sale where the court found such documents would be of ?marginal relevance at best? and that the burden and expense of production outweighed the benefit, noting that such production would ?vastly expand? an already voluminous production, would entail additional translation costs, and would ?potentially require the involvement of additional entities or foreign law??; court also declined to compel Defendant to conduct searches of Account Representatives for 170 different airlines where Plaintiff failed to establish that the expanded search would reveal additional relevant information and noting that the productions of third party air carriers had not revealed any ?glaring deficiencies? in Defendant?s production

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bruno v. Bozutto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-874, 2015 WL 7294464 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff? spoliation of financial information forced experts to rely upon ?unverified secondhand data,? court found the reports ?exhibit[ed] neither sufficient reliability nor the requisite fit required for admission in federal practice? and granted Defendant?s motion to exclude

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel

Electronic Data Involved: Financial information (ESI, hard copy)

SFP Works LLC v. Buffalo Armory LLC, No. 14-13575, 2015 WL 7294580 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged it could not access the data produced by defendant?even with the use of specialized software provided by Defendant and the assistance of a third party vendor?and refused the options provided by defendant insisting instead that defendant must re-load the date to ensure it was not corrupted, the court noted Plaintiff?s failure to timely seek a solution to the discovery problems or to mitigate the difficulties by pursuing any of the offered remedial measures and denied the motion to compel access to the at-issue information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (“operational data”)

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

United States v. GSD Media City, LLC, No. 14-11049, 2015 WL 7744578 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Appellate court found no abuse of discretion for award of conversion and character recognition costs where Defendant attested that the costs were necessarily incurred and did not request all costs related to electronic discovery and where the objecting party failed to itemize which costs it claimed were not permissible or provide an explanation of why they were not covered by the statute

Nature of Case: Qui tam; FCA (costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920 (4))

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 2015