Author - eDiscovery Import

1
C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)
2
Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)
3
Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)
4
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)
5
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)
6
3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)
7
Pace v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007)
8
Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)
9
PML N. Am., LLC v. ACG Enters. of NC, Inc., 2007 WL 2156276 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2007)
10
Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2106098 (S.D.N.Y. July 21. 2007)

C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Denying motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents listed on privilege log, court nonetheless found log inadequate and ordered plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log and, further, to identify whether or not each email listed is a ?string? or ?strand? email and, if so, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry in the privilege log

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)

Key Insight: Denying Ford’s request for clarification of January 4, 2007 Order, court nonetheless confirmed that plaintiffs may ask deponent about what materials are available for production, and if materials are not available, why they are not available; “Plaintiffs are not, however, permitted to use the deposition as a surrogate for production of the suspension document, and may not ask questions pertaining to the specific contents or rationale behind the suspension order.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notice

Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant received from an anonymous source a copy of an email sent by plaintiff which had not been produced by plaintiff in discovery, court denied defendant’s motion for access to plaintiff’s computer but stated that defendant would be permitted to depose plaintiff about items in his possession and items no longer in his possession, and court would be willing to entertain renewed motion depending on the testimony obtained

Nature of Case: Student who was suspended and denied re-admission alleged discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court found it “bothersome” that it no attempt at all was made by some of the founders to search, even on a random basis, their personal or office emails, balancing the burden on the founders of conducting full email searches of their non-@hssh.org email accounts against the likelihood that such searches would recover few, if any, additional documents not already produced by Heartland, court declined to require founders to conduct any searches of their personal email accounts in responding to subpoenas

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal email accounts of plaintiff’s founders

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for clarification and ruled that defendants would be permitted to conduct limited ex parte interviews with plaintiff’s former employee relating solely to particular database at issue, including the underlying functioning of the Advantx database and how Heartland, in particular, used that database and any custom-designed reports which Heartland may have developed; defendants were also free to ask former employee to operate the version of Heartland’s Advantx program and the Advantx database that Heartland produced in this case and were free to ask him to run searches using the program and to prepare any customized reports defendants may request from the database

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Interviews with former employee re database used by plaintiff

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

Pace v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced requested work orders in .pdf format and then in other electronic formats in attempts to resolve plaintiff’s complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions since plaintiff could not show that production request called for any specific format and court could not conclude that defendant had failed to meet such request

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work orders

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

PML N. Am., LLC v. ACG Enters. of NC, Inc., 2007 WL 2156276 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant was insolvent and unable to fund litigation expenses or pay monetary sanctions imposed for electronic discovery abuses (which included among other things the unexplained disappearance of a hard drive from CEO’s laptop), and in light of CEO’s active participation in the fraud, breach of contract and e-discovery abuses, court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add defendant’s CEO as an individual defendant

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2106098 (S.D.N.Y. July 21. 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of email from 113 backup tapes, estimated to cost between $45,200 and $79,100, plus attorney’s time in reviewing documents, since defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that responsive emails relating to settlement negotiations existed on the backup tapes, which covered time periods that were months after the settlement was reached; court noted that if moving party wished to pay to restore the backup tapes, it may do so

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

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