Archive - February 2016

1
For the First Time, English Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding
2
Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)
3
Stormo v. City of Sioux Falls, No. 12-04057 (D. S.D. Feb. 19, 2016)
4
Court Declines to Compel Production of All Documents Identified by Agreed-Upon Search Terms
5
McSparran v. Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa, 2016)
6
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)
7
Thomley v. Bennett (S.D. Ga., 2016)
8
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Northern District of Illinois Court, 2016)
9
InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC (N.D. Cal., 2016)
10
Citing Newly-Amended Rule 37(e), Court Vacates Prior Order Imposing Adverse Inference

For the First Time, English Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding

Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)

On February 2, 2016 an English court approved the use of predictive coding for the first time. Thereafter, it issued an opinion explaining the reasons for approval, relying in part upon the well-known Da Silva Moore case, which was the first to approve the use of predictive coding in American litigation.

Following extensive discussion of the issue, including acknowledging the parties’ agreement to utilize predictive coding in this case, the court laid out the factors it considered in favor of approving the use of predictive coding, noting “there were no factors of any weight pointing in the opposite direction”:

Read More

Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)

Key Insight: if the balance of the discovery requests outweighed their benefit

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud , negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and unfair competition.

Electronic Data Involved: responses of three interrogatories in light of changes to rule 26

Keywords: proportionality, motion to compel, balance of request, benefit of requested discovery

View Case Opinion

Court Declines to Compel Production of All Documents Identified by Agreed-Upon Search Terms

Gardner v. Continental Cas. Co., 3:13 CV 1918 (JBA), 2016 WL 155002 (D. Conn. Jan. 1, 2016)

Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all 38,000 documents hit by agreed-upon search terms.  Following review for relevance and privilege, Defendant produced only 2,214 pages “of which 274 pages consisted of copies of the complaints, with exhibits, filed in this lawsuit.” The court declined to compel the production of all search hits, but acknowledged concerns regarding Defendant’s production based on documents produced by a third party.  Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to confer regarding variations of “sampling and iterative refinement” or “a quick peek protocol” of the documents hit by search terms and also indicated willingness to consider appointment of a Special Master to conduct a review of the documents at the expense of the parties.

Read More

Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested

Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA

Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment

View Case Opinion

Thomley v. Bennett (S.D. Ga., 2016)

Key Insight: whether defendants acted with prejudice in not preserving “loop type system” video footage; whether spoliation sanctions apply for destroyed evidence

Nature of Case: Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force (cruel and unusual punishment)

Electronic Data Involved: medical records

Keywords: spoliation, preserve, prejudice, intent, bad faith, loop type system

View Case Opinion

InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC (N.D. Cal., 2016)

Key Insight: Failure to preserve relevant evidence.

Nature of Case: Trademark ownership dispute.

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants discarded computers, following an alleged power surge which “fried” data.

Keywords: Defendants “willfully spoliated evidence” and the “extraordinary measures Batterman undertook to mislead opposing counsel and the Court merit a finding of bad faith.”

View Case Opinion

Citing Newly-Amended Rule 37(e), Court Vacates Prior Order Imposing Adverse Inference

Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB), 2016 WL 305096 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)

In this case, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a prior order imposing an adverse inference for Plaintiff’s failure to preserve text messages, in light of new standards imposed under recently amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.