eDiscovery Import – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. Of De Pere, LLC, No. 15-C-444, 2016 WL 1275046 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiff?s computer or to allow a third party to conduct an examination where Defendant?s request was ?not calculated to produce information relevant to Defendant?s arguments or the proportional needs of the case? and where the court reasoned that even if Defendant found what it was looking for, it would not change its legal position

Nature of Case: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer (for inspection)

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

Ye v. Veissman, Inc., No. 14-cv-01531, 2016 WL 950948 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants requested a full archive of social media contents from the decedent and her next of kin from 2007 through the date of Plaintiff?s death in April 2013, the court acknowledged that some social media content may be relevant to the claims and defenses at issue but found that where the request was not tailored to relevant content or limited to a reasonable period of time it was overbroad and Defendants? motion to compel was denied

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Social media (Facebook)

In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4943393 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the parties disagreed on the discoverability of communications between Defendants? foreign subsidiaries and divisions and foreign regulators regarding the filters at issue in the case. Following analysis of the effects of the December 1, 2015 amendments on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and of the specific facts of the case, the court determined that the at-issue communications were ?only marginally relevant? and was persuaded that ?the burden of [the] foreign discovery would be substantial.? Thus, the court concluded that Defendants were not required to search their foreign entities for communications with foreign regulators. In the course of its discussion of the amendments, the court stated: “Amended Rule 26(b)(1) was adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 2072 et. seq. That statute provides that ‘[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’ Id., ? 2072(b). Thus, just as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1). The test going forward is whether evidence is ‘relevant to any party?s claim or defense,’ not whether it is ‘reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.'”

Wilmington Trust Co. v. AEP Generating Co., No. 2:13-cv-01213, 2016 WL 860693 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching in two previously excluded timeframes, denying the motion as to documents generated at a time in which ?nothing of significance was happening? as indicated by Defendants and because the cost and burden of the requested discovery would violate the rule of proportionality but granting the motion as to information created after the filing of the complaint, where the court rejected Defendants? claim that nothing created after that time could have possibly been relevant and noted that Defendants failed to present any specific argument about undue burden, apart from having disassembled their review teams

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from previously unsearched timeframes

Mathur v. Hospitality Props. Trust, No. 13-cv-7206, 2016 WL 520999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s duty to preserve surveillance footage was triggered by the fact that it knew Defendant was robbed in its hotel, that the police were involved, and that both the police and Defendants ?were using the footage to investigate the incident? (perhaps evidenced by the preservation of different footage at the request of police), the court reasoned that ??mere knowledge of the accident and the possible causes of the accident? is not enough to create a duty to preserve evidence? and found that defendant?s spoliation claim failed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from robbery of hotel guest

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Broadspring, Inc. v. Congoo, LLC, No. 13-cv-1866(RJS), 2016 WL 817449 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Allowing taxable costs for the conversion of native files to TIFF

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Ericksen v. Kaplan Higher Ed., LLC, No. RDB-14-3106, 2016 WL 695789 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where forensic examination revealed that immediately prior to that examination Plaintiff had run ?several ?optimizer? or ?data destruction programs?? that destroyed ?some data? the court found that Plaintiff acted willfully and, addressing Defendant?s request for dismissal, cited newly amended Rule 37(e) for the proposition that the ?Court need impose ?measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice?? and ordered that Plaintiff would be precluded for presenting evidence that Defendants?because of her actions?could not confirm as authentic but reasoned that dismissal was not necessary

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lewis v. Bellows Falls Congregation of Jehovah?s Witnesses, No. 1:14-cv-205, 2016 WL 589867 (D. Vt. Feb. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel relevant contents of Plaintiff?s Facebook account but was not ?persuaded that unfettered access was warranted? and therefore ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to review Plaintiff?s ?entire Facebook account? to determine the relevance of the material therein, as determined by the court?s identification of 7 categories of relevant materials

Nature of Case: [N]egligence based on a duty (1) to perform an undertaking and (2) to supervise

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media contents (Facebook)

Marten Transp. Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc., No. 14-cv-02464-JWL-TJJ, 2016 WL 492743 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, although a general duty to preserve arose in 2013, the duty to preserve the internet history of the at-issue employee did not arise until June 2015, which was after the employee had been moved to a different work station

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Author - eDiscovery Import