Archive - 2017

1
Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance (Northern District of Georgia, 2017)
2
Tingle v. Hebert, No. 3:15-cv-00626-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. June 9, 2017)
3
In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)
4
Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (E.D. Pa, 2017)
5
Hugler v. Jasper Contractors, 1:16-cv-3845-LMM-JSA (ND Ga, 2017)
6
Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017).
7
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc. (W.D. Wisc., 2017)
8
Miller v. Zara USA, 2017 NY Slip Op 04407 [151 AD3d 462] (N.Y. App. June 6, 2017)
9
Phoenix Light SF Ltd. V. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 14cv10103 (JGK)(DF) (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017)
10
TX Supreme Court Addresses Format of Production, Applies Proportionality

Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance (Northern District of Georgia, 2017)

Key Insight: Court used a spoliation test non-specific to electronic discovery, spoliation not found due to one defendant not in control of the evidence and the other destroying the evidence without bad faith and not when litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Collision

Electronic Data Involved: ECM data

Keywords: ECM, electronic control module, spoliation

View Case Opinion

Tingle v. Hebert, No. 3:15-cv-00626-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. June 9, 2017)

Key Insight: Discovery requests must be proportional; limited to scope/time frame

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, defamation

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails, text messages

Keywords: Retaliation, discrimination, Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control

View Case Opinion

In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)

Key Insight: Defense was allowed to ask neutral questions about destruction of SDM data, even without intent to deprive, without using FRCP 37(e).

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: SDM data

Keywords: SDM, sensory diagnostic module, spoliation, class action

View Case Opinion

Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (E.D. Pa, 2017)

Key Insight: whether the loss of a cell phone can give rise to an adverse inference re location data

Nature of Case: insurance fraud

Electronic Data Involved: lost cell phone

Keywords: spoliation; adverse inference

View Case Opinion

Hugler v. Jasper Contractors, 1:16-cv-3845-LMM-JSA (ND Ga, 2017)

Key Insight: petitioner’s motion for contempt, subpoena enforcement

Nature of Case: subpoena duces tecum issued by US Dept. of Labor to Respondent, a roofing company. Workplace safety violations and follow-up inspections..

Electronic Data Involved: text and email messages

Keywords: subpoena duces tecum, failure to take reasonable steps to comply with the order

View Case Opinion

Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017).

Key Insight: Jury Instruction due to failure to preserve electronically stored information.

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Web browser history, Internet browser

Keywords: Web browser history, Spoliation

View Case Opinion

Miller v. Zara USA, 2017 NY Slip Op 04407 [151 AD3d 462] (N.Y. App. June 6, 2017)

Key Insight: Attorney client privilege and work product protections for communications from company devices

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Company laptop data

Keywords: attorney client privilege, computer forensics, privacy policy, work product

Identified State Rule(s): CPLR 3103

Phoenix Light SF Ltd. V. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 14cv10103 (JGK)(DF) (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017)

Key Insight: Search for ESI (specifically emails) using search terms.

Nature of Case: Trusts, Contractual and fiduciary obligations

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments

Keywords: Trusts, Trust name or identifier, electronic search, search terms.

View Case Opinion

TX Supreme Court Addresses Format of Production, Applies Proportionality

In re State Farm Lloyds, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905, 2017 WL 2323099 (Tex. Mar. 26, 2017)

Today, we elucidate the guiding principles informing the exercise of discretion over electronic-discovery disputes, emphasizing that proportionality is the polestar. In doing so, we further a guiding tenet of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: that litigants achieve a “just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication . . . with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense . . . as may be practicable.”

In this dispute over the format of production, the Supreme Court of Texas took its opportunity to “(1) clarify that neither the requesting party nor the producing party has a unilateral right to specify the format of discovery under Rule 196.4 and (2) provide guidance regarding the application of Rule 192.4’s proportionality factors in the electronic-discovery context.” In so doing, the court denied the request for mandamus relief without prejudice “to allow the relator to seek reconsideration by the trial court in light of [the] opinion.”  The court summarized its conclusions as follows:

Under our discovery rules, neither party may dictate the form of electronic discovery. The requesting party must specify the desired form of production, but all discovery is subject to the proportionality overlay embedded in our discovery rules and inherent in the reasonableness standard to which our electronic-discovery rule is tethered. The taproot of this discovery dispute is whether production in native format is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. Reasonableness and its bedfellow, proportionality, require a case-by-case balancing of jurisprudential considerations, which is informed by factors the discovery rules identify as limiting the scope of discovery and geared toward the ultimate objective of “obtain[ing] a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication” for the litigants “with as great expedition and dispatch at the least expense … as may be practicable.” (Citations omitted.)

Read More

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