2015 – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Osborne v. Billings Clinic, No. CV 14-126-BLG-SPW, 2015 WL 1412626 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where requesting party failed to request a specific format of production and the responding party therefore produced in PDFs, the court reasoned that Defendant failed to assert that it could not produce the information as it was originally kept and that Plaintiff should not be at a ?disadvantage by having to slog through thousands of pages of records in unusable form? and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the at-issue medical records in the manner in which they were maintained

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored medical records

U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. 4:10-CV-03724-CW (LB), 2015 WL 5187505 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Reasoning that ?[t]he inquiry about what electronic processes are taxable turns on whether they are part of making copies ?necessarily obtained for use in the case? or instead are solely for the convenience of counsel? the court indicated that it would award costs for load file preparation, but not for processing data

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs

Mobile Telecomm. Techs., LLC v. Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-259-RSP, 2015 WL 5719123 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied recovery of OCR costs where Defendant failed to show that the step was necessary for making copies, where no party had identified 5th Circuit authority allowing recovery of OCR costs, and where the holding was consistent with the Court?s standing order, which specifically instructed that e-Discovery costs were not allowed, including ?cost for document collection, document processing, and document hosting.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Chung v. El Paso School Dist. #11, No. 14-cv-01520-KLM, 2015 WL 7253334 (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court held clerk did not err in awarding costs for ?loading documents into an electronic data base for production to Plaintiff on computer disks during discovery.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Junious Vital v. Nat?l Oilwell Varco, No. H-12-1357, 2015 WL 40417 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to award of costs for ?monthly expenses associated with maintaining a database of electronically stored information used to locate, retrieve, and store the plaintiffs? emails.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Archive - 2015