Archive - 2017

1
Fitzpatrick v. Sgt. Verheyen (E.D. Wisc., 2017)
2
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-0465-MMS (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2016)
3
UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assoc., Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-81180-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017)
4
Citing Failure to Cooperate, Court Orders Use of Specific Keyword Search Terms
5
Moultrie v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (South Carolina District, Charleston Division, 2017)
6
Donlin v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., No. CIV 17-0395 JCH/JHR (D.N.M. Oct. 10, 2017)
7
Carpenter v. All American Games, No. CV16-01768-PHX DGC, 2017 WL 4517081 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2017).
8
Court Compels Search of Additional Custodians, Notes Defendant’s Failure to Provide “Even a Rough Estimate” of the Alleged Burden
9
City of Seattle v. ZyLAB North America, LLC (Western District of Washington, Seattle, 2017)
10
Pugh v. Junqing (E.D. Mo., 2017)

Fitzpatrick v. Sgt. Verheyen (E.D. Wisc., 2017)

Key Insight: Not organizing surveillance videos so that they could be promptly located was not found to be an “intent to deprive”

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Keywords: video, intent, spoliation sanctions

View Case Opinion

Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-0465-MMS (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2016)

Key Insight: 1500 documents withheld as privileged under procedures in FRE 502 (d);

Nature of Case: Fifth Amendment, taking private property without just compensation

Electronic Data Involved: 1500 documents

Keywords: quick peek, privileged, taking, unjust compensation

View Case Opinion

UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assoc., Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-81180-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017)

Key Insight: Court had permitted Defendants to select an additional 16 custodians and 12 additional search terms. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration being concerned about amount that would be produced. Court denied reconsideration, urged cooperation and clarified that earlier limits on discovery applied to new materials as well.

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails, Documents

Keywords: search terms; cooperation; additional custodians; additional terms

View Case Opinion

Citing Failure to Cooperate, Court Orders Use of Specific Keyword Search Terms

United States v. New Mexico State Univ., No. 1:16-cv-00911-JAP-LF, 2017 WL 4386358 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017)

In this pay discrimination case, the Court addressed Defendants’ motion for a protective order precluding further searching for responsive documents. Citing defense counsel’s failure to “adequately confer” before performing the initial searches, “which resulted in searches that were inadequate to reveal all responsive documents,” the Court concluded that “which searches will be conducted is left to the Court” and went on to order Defendants to conduct additional searches with specific terms, many of which were proposed by the plaintiff.

Read More

Moultrie v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (South Carolina District, Charleston Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Party cannot use screenshots not disclosed in discovery to in support of summary judgment motion alleging electronic signature

Nature of Case: insurance coverage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: archived screenshots

Keywords: electronic signature, affirmative signature, meaningful offer, prepopulated

View Case Opinion

Donlin v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., No. CIV 17-0395 JCH/JHR (D.N.M. Oct. 10, 2017)

Key Insight: Employer must produce company-wide documents without geographic limitations when all employees are subject to same leave of absence policies.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: General request for production and interrogatories

Keywords: employing unit, geographic scope, work unit, FMLA, scope of discovery, relevancy

View Case Opinion

Carpenter v. All American Games, No. CV16-01768-PHX DGC, 2017 WL 4517081 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2017).

Key Insight: Failure to address standards for spoliation of ESI, no showing of entitlement to adverse inference instruction.

Nature of Case: defamation

Electronic Data Involved: AGGIS and Cybersource systems

Keywords: adverse inference instruction

View Case Opinion

Court Compels Search of Additional Custodians, Notes Defendant’s Failure to Provide “Even a Rough Estimate” of the Alleged Burden

Mann v. City of Chicago, Nos. 15 CV 9197, 13 CV 4531, 2017 WL 3970592 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2017)

Plaintiffs sued the City of Chicago and the Chicago police alleging that they had been wrongfully arrested, detained and prosecuted and that they were abused at “off the books” detention centers without access to counsel. Although the parties agreed on search terms and the majority of custodians, they “reached an impasse” as to which custodians in the Mayor’s Office should be searched, including the Mayor himself.  Because the court found the information sought would be relevant and because Defendant did not establish the alleged burden of the request—failing to provide even an estimate—the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, including their request to add the Mayor.  In so deciding, the court also noted several proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake and the plaintiffs’ lack of access to the requested information.

Read More

City of Seattle v. ZyLAB North America, LLC (Western District of Washington, Seattle, 2017)

Key Insight: Method of production requiring out-of state travel not contract breach and retention of counsel not enough to show material is privileged

Nature of Case: breach of contract, consumer protection act litigation

Electronic Data Involved: audit documents

Keywords: proportionality, foreign parent, method of production, privilege determination

View Case Opinion

Pugh v. Junqing (E.D. Mo., 2017)

Key Insight: The social media discovery request was considered overbroad, and was limited to posts relevant to the case

Nature of Case: Car accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Keywords: Social media, proportionality

View Case Opinion

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