February 2022 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hamilton v. Oswego Community Unit School District 308 (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Feb 25 2022

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence based on defendants’ failure to preserve a photograph of their child’s bruise that was taken by the school nurse that led to a call to the DCFS hotline. The court found that defendants did not have a duty to preserve the photograph because it was not reasonably foreseeable the instant litigation would be forthcoming. At the time the nurse deleted the photo there was no indication that plaintiffs were contemplating litigation against the school for anything related to the nurse’s visit or the report to DCFS. As such, there was no duty to preserve the photo. Even if there was a duty to preserve the photo, the court found that plaintiffs were not prejudiced by its deletion.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, Photographs

Case Summary

Emerson Creek Pottery v. Emerson Creek Events (W.D. Va. 2022)

Feb 18 2022

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions against defendants relying on (1) an inadvertently disclosed email between defendant and his counsel discussing the preservation of emails, and (2) defendants did not produce a “mirror image” of the emails produced by third parties. Plaintiff contended the content of the email between defendant and his counsel is evidence that defendant failed to preserve ESI and defendant countered that it was part of a longer conversation between defendant and defense counsel about how defendants temporarily lost access to some of their emails during a server migration but later recovered them. The court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that defendants lost ESI and there was nothing to suggest that there were any additional emails that plaintiff had not received from defendants or third parties. If the court were to consider a remedy, the remedy requested by plaintiff was “draconian” and nearly the entirety of what defendants were expected to argue at trial, and the court would have to tailor a remedy to the particular discovery violation in question.

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Arconic Corp. v. Novelis Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2022)

Feb 10 2022

Key Insight: The court denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal based on metadata in the court’s orders that suggested that the special master was the author of some of the court’s opinions in the case. Plaintiff claimed the author field on the metadata suggested the special master was the author of the court’s opinions but the court explained how this opinion was wrong. The author field of the metadata for a document created from a template will continue to reflect the name of the person who originally created the document unless that name is changed. The court did not change or remove the author field when using a template document that had previously been prepared in the case but acknowledged going forward it would revise the authorship data on its court orders as needed. Further, the court’s decisions demonstrate that the opinions and orders are those of the court, acting independently of the special master, based on the differences between the court’s decisions and the related R&Rs by the special master.

Nature of Case: Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Case Summary

Consultus, LLC v. CPC Commodities (W.D. Mo. 2022)

Feb 04 2022

Key Insight: Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ claims of privilege should be overruled due to the crime-fraud exception. Defendants withheld emails claiming work product and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs have not argued that the emails are not covered by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to assure that the “seal of secrecy” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications “made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime.” In order to avail itself of the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must satisfy a threshold showing of “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that the [party asserting the privilege] was engaged in intentional fraud and communicated with counsel in furtherance of the fraud.” The court found that plaintiffs’ assertions do not satisfy the threshold showing as they amount to conjecture since there is no other evidence that the communications were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Case Summary

Archive - February 2022