2021 – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Oro BRC4, LLC v. Silvertree Apartments, Nos. 2:19-cv-4907, 2:19-cv-5087 (S.D. Ohio, June 10, 2021).

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought a motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant’s failure to prepare its Rule 30(b)(6) deponent to testify on topics related to ESI preservation and collection, and for spoliation sanctions related to the failure to preserve ESI. The court granted sanctions for defendant’s failure to prepare its 30(b)(6) designee, finding: “The production of an unprepared witness is tantamount to a failure to appear, and warrants the imposition of sanctions.” Defendant offered its head of IT as the corporate designee. He received the deposition notice less than 72 hours before the deposition, spent about 6 hours preparing to testify (approximately 10 minutes per topic), did not review any documents other than his own emails, and did not speak or communicate with other employees to gather information on the topics he was supposed to testify about. The court ordered a second 30(b)(6) deposition, required defendant to pay the reasonable costs and expenses associated with attending the second deposition and fees for plaintiff’s ESI consultant to attend, and awarded fees associated with having to bring the motion to compel. On the issue of failure to preserve ESI evidence, the court concluded it was premature to address this issue until the second 30(b)(6) deposition, which would cover topics relating to defendant’s litigation hold efforts.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI business documents and electronic devices

Case Summary

Lake v. Charlotte County Board of County Commisioners (M.D. Fla. 2021)

Jun 09 2021

Key Insight: Communications between a party and its hired legal consultant are work product if they are generated in anticipation of litigation. Work product containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories concerning the litigation is rarely discoverable and enjoy “near absolute immunity.” Documents subpoenaed from the legal consultant still retain work product privilege.

Instead of providing privilege logs, the court allowed the legal consultants to categorically withhold or redact privileged communications so long as they provided a certification that none of withheld or redacted documents were distributed to or reviewed by any other third parties. In lieu of such certification, the legal consultants would have to produce a privilege log.

Nature of Case: Property, Eminent Domain

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Electronic Communications

Case Summary

Haywood v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions against defendants, claiming the defendants’ production of ESI relating to the treatment of plaintiff’s mental illness was produced in PDF as opposed to its native Excel format and not reasonably usable. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering defendants to produce the ESI in their native Excel format and awarded plaintiff’s counsel $25,000 in fees. The court rejected defendants’ argument that it converted the Excel data into PDF because it was required under HIPAA and Illinois law given the protective order in place. The court further found the ESI in PDF form was not “reasonably usable” under Rule 34(b). There is missing data and text, and it eliminated plaintiff’s ability to sort and organize the data contained in the spreadsheets. Quoting another court’s decision, the court noted: “One of the unique strengths of Excel software is the ability to implement calculations and formulae that are not evident in a PDF version[.]” This forced plaintiff to sort more than 270,000 pages of information, much of which is either redacted or difficult to read.

Nature of Case: Prisoner Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Prisoner Records

Case Summary

AnywhereCommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: The court granted reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of documents in the possession of a corporate defendant in France. In a prior order, the court found that the GDPR did not preclude the court from ordering defendants to produce evidence, but based the order on plaintiffs’ representation that much of the requested information was located in the U.S. and therefore in the possession of domestic defendants. Thus, the court bifurcated its analysis to exclude any documents in the possession of French defendants. On reconsideration, plaintiffs claimed the important and relevant documents were located in France. Applying the factors from Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442(1)(c), the court found they weighed in favor of disclosure, together with the entry of a protective order that would protect France’s interests under the GDPR.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

Case Summary

In re: CCA Recordings 2255 Litigation v. United States of America (D. Kan. 2021)

Jun 01 2021

Key Insight: Petitioners filed an action alleging the government violated their Sixth Amendment rights by recording their conversations and meetings with counsel while detained at Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Petitioners sought spoliation sanctions against CCA, alleging an upgrade to the operating system where the recordings were saved wiped all metadata that would have shown if the US attorneys viewed the video recordings containing privileged communications. The court denied the motion, finding petitioners could not establish the threshold question: whether any metadata actually existed to show who logged in to view the recordings. “If there is no evidence that logging metadata ever existed, it could not have been intentionally destroyed to deprive petitioners of its use, and there can be no spoliation as it relates to that specific ESI relevant to petitioners’ claims.”

Nature of Case: Violation of Sixth Amendment Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Video Recordings

Case Summary

FTC v. Vyera Pharms., LLC (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2021)

Jun 01 2021

Key Insight: Vyera’s company policy was to issue employees iPhones that were backed up through iCloud but one executive, Mithani, whose conduct was central to the government’s antitrust claims, had requested and received a Blackberry as his company phone, which had no systemic back up of text communications. Despite being under an obligation to preserve evidence, the executive confirmed deleting texts on his work and personal mobile phones before and after receiving a hold notice from Vyera, and wiped his work phone upon leaving the company. A forensic expert confirmed no data could be retrieved or restored from the Blackberry. The court concluded Vyera’s conduct constituted spoliation and warranted sanctions as plaintiffs were prejudiced by Vyera’s conduct and the former executive acted intentionally to deprive plaintiffs of discoverable information. The court declined to adopt an adverse inference sanction and instead adopted Vyera’s proposed sanction that it be precluded from calling the former employee to testify in its defense or introducing into evidence documents that he authored.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Case Summary

Maurer v. Sysco Albany, LLC (N.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 27 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to produce electronically stored information responsive to specific keyword searches as well as predictive coding. Defendants opposed the Motion on the basis that the information sought was overbroad, and not proportional or relevant to the litigation. Defendants proposed their own electronically stored information “search protocol”.

The Court partially granted Plaintiff’s Motion, allowing specific keyword searches and search methods requested by Plaintiff. Notably, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to utilize predictive coding in the search for electronically stored information.

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination, Disability Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents, Emails,

Case Summary

Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 24 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,

Case Summary

D’Agostin v. Fitness Int’l, LLC (D. Conn. May, 12, 2021)

May 21 2021

Key Insight: The scope of discovery for Plaintiff is limited to requesting information regarding accidents involving falls in locker rooms with tile surfaces in Defendant’s facilities that occurred up to five years prior to the accident giving rise to litigation. Allowing Plaintiff to expand the scope to any tiled floor(s) within Defendant’s facilities would move discovery beyond the focal point of litigation.

Nature of Case: Premises Liability

Electronic Data Involved: N/A

Case Summary

Bursztein v. Best Buy (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 17 2021

Key Insight:

Plaintiff moved to sanction Defendant for failure to comply with discovery obligations and spoliation of evidence in personal injury and premises liability litigation. The discovery requests that led to Plaintiff’s Motion were for video surveillance of, and facilities records and training manuals related to the “slip and fall” incident at issue in the litigation; the Defendant did not fully respond to the requests, and failed to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) relating to the incident.

The Court partially granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, allowing Plaintiff to present evidence at trial regarding Plaintiff’s spoliation of the ESI, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs incurred in briefing the Motion. The Court found that the Defendant failed to preserve the surveillance footage as well as entries in its Facilities Request System. Moreover, the Defendant failed to produce the above mentioned facilities records and training manuals.

Nature of Case: Personal Injury, Premises Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance Video, Facilities Request System (Database)

Case Summary

Archive - 2021