December 1, 2016 – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Ex Parte Application of Global Energy Horizons Ltd., No. 14-3180, 2016 WL 1657889 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Third Circuit affirmed denial of Global Energy Horizon?s motion to compel reasoning that the District Court was ?on firm ground? in determining the burden imposed upon the non-party would ?likely have been intrusive and burdensome in violation of Rule 45 despite Global?s offer to pay for reasonable cost? where responding to the subpoena seeking ?all communications between [the non-party?s] 400 to 450 employees? and another entity and any financial documents relating to certain technology would require that each employee be interviewed and their hard drives be copied and reasoning that the District Court was reasonable in deciding not to modify the subpoena where the non-party had already ?spent thousands of dollars and substantial time? responding to prior requests; Circuit Court also affirmed lower court?s finding that non-party was under no duty to preserve emails where the record ?did not lead the court to conclude? that the non-party ?should have known that litigation was imminent? and ?Global never sought a litigation hold on [the non-party?s] electronically stored information?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Core Labs. LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs., LLC, No. CIV-11-1157-M, 2016 WL 879324 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where emails were lost in Defendant?s transition from one service provider to another, despite efforts to preserve, the court found that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss and found that a presumptive adverse inference was appropriate but declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s deletion of ?personal? files prior to production of a hard drive for forensic analysis where the court found such deletion ?reasonable? and also declined to impose sanctions for the wiping of an at-issue computer where the court found no bad faith in light of the alleged ?computer problems? that the wipe was intended to address and Defendant?s claim that ?anything that needed to be kept? was exported first; notably court?s analysis included specific recognition of newly amended Rule 37(e) but also recognized a common law standard requiring only prejudice to impose a spoliation sanction

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, computer files, contents of hard drive

W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Allen, No. 6:14-CV-00747-AA, 2016 WL 684658 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Noting that ?this court has held previously, ?the costs associated with the formatting and preparing of the administrative record are proper and necessarily incurred to produce electronic copies? for use in the case? the court allowed costs for ?converting TIFF images into searchable PDF format, electronically Bates-stamping the PDF images, hyperlinking the PDF images to the index, editing the index, and burning the images to DVDs.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Assoc. Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. V. BendTec, Inc., No. 14-1602(MJD/LIB), 2016 WL 740409 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court held that ?costs of creating and maintaining an electronic platform for e-Discovery are not recoverable under ? 1920(4).?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

LBI, Inc. v. Sparks, No. KNLCV, 2016 WL 351850 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to find ESI ?not reasonably accessible? because of the alleged cost of production where the case at issue was worth $4.5 million and thus the alleged costs did not appear ?sufficiently disproportionate,? where the defendant did not allege a lack of resources, and where defendant had a ?significant interest? in performing the discovery work in a manner that controlled costs but made two exceptions as to documents that would need to be culled and separately recoded and restored before they could be searched and as to documents that needed to be converted to a searchable format to determine tier potential relevance; court ordered parties to confer re: production protocol and cost shifting

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Prezio Health, Inc. v. John Schenk & Spectrum Surgical Instruments, Inc., No. 3:13 CV 1463 (WWE), 2016 WL 111406 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where individual Defendant informed his family that litigation related emails were to be preserved, but where at least three of eight ordered to be produced were lost, perhaps when Defendant?s wife transferred her emails to a new App, court found Defendant?s effort was ?grossly deficient? noting that defense counsel and Defendant had failed to impress upon the family the significance of the emails; addressing question of an appropriate sanction, Court cited Residential Funding Corp, 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), and ordered a ?permissive adverse inference? and payment of Plaintiff?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred in pursuing the issue

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from account used by multiple family members

Exclaim Mktg., LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-684-FL, 2016 WL 1258776 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court disallowed costs for ? ?iConnect Licensing Fees,? data hosting, ?OCR,? and near-line hosting? ?arising out of the storage and analysis of electronically stored information? as well as ?outside labor charges? described as ?tech time?

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, NO. 11-CV-842W(F), 2016 WL 1128494 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion for protective order shifting the costs of producing inaccessible data as part of agreed upon sample set where Defendant failed to adequately establish the justification for cost-shifting by submitting broadly stated affidavit that provided no explanation re: source of affiant?s knowledge of his assertions or any explanation of what the term ?inaccessible? was meant to apply to (e.g., digitized records v. hard copy) and where affiant offered no justification for estimates re: required man hour or hourly rates; court indicated that even if Defendant had established its burden, application of the Zubulake factors re: cost-shifting favored Plaintiff

Nature of Case: FCDPA

Madison Oslin, Inc. v. Interstate Res., Inc., No. MJG-12-3041, 2016 WL 1077101 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? recovery of ESI-related costs because the parties agreed that the costs of producing ESI from reasonably accessible sources would be borne by the producing party, the court reasoned that ?it did not follow that the scope of the agreement [could] be expanded to also address the costs recoverable to the prevailing party upon completion of the case,? that ?the parties agreed to require the production of metadata, in addition to simply reformatting the information into a non-editable format,? and that ?[t]he costs for such production are recoverable? and found that the copying costs incurred for the production of ESI were required for use in the case, limited to allowable costs, and reasonable and thus Plaintiff?s motion for a review of the clerk?s order taxing costs was denied

Nature of Case: Taxable costs where parties had agreed that producing parties would bear cost of production from reasonably accessible sources

Archive - December 1, 2016