December 1, 2016 – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ferring B.V. v. Fera Pharm. LLC, CV 1304640(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 5396620 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant responded to court?s inquiries regarding its search efforts and marked its search terms and a ?non-exhaustive list of topic areas of documents produced to Plaintiff? as attorney work product, court reasoned that ?this is precisely the type information which is generally shared by counsel in complex civil litigation cases so that they may reach an agreement regarding the scope of production of ESI? and that ?[t]he norm in these cases is that counsel for both sides review and agree in advance on the parameters of the search, on any search terms to be used, and on the specific custodians whose files are to be searched? and ordered Defendant to file unredacted copies on ECF, but indicated that they would be under seal to protect information covered by the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant?s request for forensic inspection be granted, to be undertaken by a neutral third party, in light of the fact that the information sought ?seem[ed] germane? and because despite ?hesitancy to allow on site inspections ? the level of distrust among the parties ? plead[ed] for such intervention,? the District Court overruled Defendant?s objections, noting that through their distrust and lack of cooperation ?[t]he parties and counsel themselves have created an atmosphere that warrants extraordinary circumstances and establishes good cause for an on-site inspection of Champion?s electronically stored information? and set forth a process by which the inspection would take place, including that the costs would be shifted to the requesting party ?given the nature of the accessibility of the [ESI] sought? (i.e., the information sought included backup and deleted material)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of ESI, including backup and deleted material

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant admitted to deleting emails while aware of potential litigation but claimed he thought the emails were backed up and that he never deleted anything from Plaintiff?s server, the court called the evidence ?troubling? but declined to impose spoliation sanctions because the evidence of bad faith was insufficient, citing in pat Defendant?s own equivocation for why he deleted the emails and his admitted practice of deleting emails in the ordinary course of business and the fact that the emails he admitted to forwarding to a personal account and then deleting were eventually produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Konica Minolta Bus. Sols., U.S.A., Inc. v. Lowery Corp., No. 15-cv-11253, 2016 WL 4537847 (Aug. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Assessing motion for sanctions, court found that Plaintiff established Defendants? duty to preserve (preservation requests were sent to all defendants) and that ESI was lost but found that further discovery was needed to address whether two of four ?predicate elements? of Rule 37(e) were met, namely whether reasonable steps were taken to preserve and whether the lost ESI could be restored or replaced through additional discovery, reasoning that ?[a]bsent sufficient proof that reasonable steps were not taken, KMBS is not entitled to relief under 37(e), even if it is shown that the ESI was lost. Sanctions are not automatic? and that ?[f]urther, a party cannot be sanctioned where the ability exists to restore or replace the ESI from other sources.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

J&JB Timberlands, LLC v. Woolsey Energy II, LLC, No. 14-cv-01318-SMY-PMF, 2016 WL 4006671 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Although the court found that Defendants breached their duty to preserve certain emails by (1) failing to take reasonable steps to preserve Kelley?s emails, (2) misrepresenting the manner in which the data was lost, (3) misrepresenting that the lost data could not be recovered, and (3) using the laptop in May and August, 2015, the court also found the breach was not intentional and that Plaintiff was only ?minimally harmed? and eventually able to obtain the missing information and thus declined to strike Defendants? pleadings but ordered that Defendants should compensate Plaintiff for the reasonable attorneys? fees and expenses incurred in obtaining the email

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Learning Care Grp. v. Armetta, No. 3:13-cv-1540 (VAB), 2016 WL 4191251 (D. Conn. June 17, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant destroyed laptop of departed employee (a ?key point of contact? for Plaintiffs in their relationship with Defendant) in accordance with its usual course of business despite a duty to preserve, court found that the information lost was relevant and that prejudice resulted, but found that Defendant was merely negligent and that awarding attorneys? fees and costs was an appropriate sanction (not default judgment or an adverse inference as had been requested); court declined to consider the newly amended rules of procedure where the parties first raised the issue in September 2015, before the application of the new rules

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop of departed employee

Ballentine v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept., NO. 2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF, 2016 WL 3636917 (D. Nev. July 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Among other things, court denied motion for protective order upon finding that Plaintiffs were ?entitled to obtain basic information sufficient to determine whether searches were reasonably conducted and the results properly verified? even without ?evidence that specific documents were destroyed or withheld? and reasoned that ?the fact that [Defendant?s] attorney(s) conducted or supervised the searches does not protect such non-privileged information from disclosure?

Electronic Data Involved: Information re: efforts to preserve, search

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., NO. CV 103-50, 2016 WL 1317673 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where promised emails were not produced but Defendant ultimately produced all documents relevant to the alleged spoliation, including ?preservation communications to document custodians, a list of custodians who were searched, the search terms used to conduct the search, and project documents and materials relating to such searches,? and also submitted a representative for an extensive Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, the court found Plaintiff?s request to compel production of ?every privileged document described as concerning data collection?[wa]s overly broad, unduly burdensome and ha[d] not been shown to relate to the issue at the forefront of this entire exercise?the missing Leon emails? despite acknowledging that ?otherwise privileged documents may be discoverable upon a preliminary showing of spoliation.?

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to preservation efforts, etc. where Plainitff alleged spoliation by Defendant and sought to compel production of privileged information

FTC v. Directv, Inc., No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ), 2016 WL 3351945 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following the parties? court-ordered meet and confer to achieve proportionality in Defendant?s requests for production of complaints from FTC customers regarding Defendant?s competitors, Defendant reduced the number of competitors about which it sought information from 10 to 3, but court also approved Plaintiff?s proposal to produce only a random sampling, even from the reduced list of competitors, where the proposal ?more closely comport[ed] with Rule 26?s demand for proportionality? noting that the relevance of the at-issue materials was ?largely speculative?

Electronic Data Involved: Customer complaints submitted to FTC re: Defendant’s competitors

MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL 1408459 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found that the at-issue discovery was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and declined to compel production of every document ?referring or relating? to Plaintiff?s ?designated Responsible Managing Employee? for all 11 of Plaintiff?s California projects where the court determined that the relevance was minimal, where both parties ?appeared to agree? that the request would require ?a search for every document to or from [the employee]? and Plaintiff alleged that many documents were not electronically searchable, and where the court recognized that ordering such production could cause a ?chilling effect? that may ?discourage [construction] companies from filing a lawsuit merely to avoid the discovery costs?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and other records “referring or relating” to specified employee

Archive - December 1, 2016