eDiscovery Import – Page 25 – Electronic Discovery Law

Farley v. Callais & Sons LLC, No. 14-2550, 2015 WL 4730729 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of log in information and all Facebook information posted since the underlying accident but granted the motion in part and compelled the production of certain categories of information to be identified by a review of Plaintiff?s account by his counsel; courts also ordered submission of sworn declaration that all such information was produced and that counsel ensured preservation of the Facebook materials lest a dispute arise in future

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., No. 4:14-CV-11521, 2015 WL 4094115 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and rejected objections based on burden where Defendants offered no evidence in support of the alleged claims of burden nor ?any specificity regarding the approximate cost of production?

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado, —F.3d—, 2015 WL 3772772 (9th Cir. June 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court found that Google Earth satellite image was not hearsay because it makes no assertion and also found that ?[a] tack placed by the Google Earth program and automatically labeled with GPS coordinates isn?t? hearsay? because the ?relevant assertion isn?t made by a person? its made by the Google Earth program? and therefore, there is no statement as defined by the hearsay rule (where the rule applies ?only to out-of-court statements? and where ?it defines a statement as ?a person?s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct?); however, ?[i]f the tack is place d manually and then labeled . . . its classic hearsay?

Nature of Case: Illegal re-entry into the U.S.A.

Electronic Data Involved: Google Earth image and tack

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

US ex rel Oughatiyan v. IPC The Hospitalist Co., Inc., No. 09 C 5418, 2015 WL 4249195 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed motion to compel nationwide discovery in action for fraudulent billing of Medicare and Medicaid but, considering the ?scope of discovery expressed in Rule 26(b)(1) along with the principle of proportionality implicit in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? limited initial phase of discovery to the seven states regarding which ?factual allegations? had been alleged in the complaint, recognizing that ?staged discovery [was] the way to move discovery forward,? and indicated that the motion would be denied without prejudice

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI records from nationwide locations

Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV214-075, 2015 WL 171236 (S.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions after Defendant stated in deposition they took accident scene photographs, but did not provide the photographs and stated all accident photographs had been provided. Plaintiff claimed Defendant?s sole possession was circumstantial evidence Defendant acted affirmatively in destroying the photographs. However, Court would not infer bad faith because it was possible ?the photographs were lost or destroyed haphazardly,? and concluded circumstantial evidence cannot prove bad faith ?without any evidence that the loss or destruction of the photographs was, or could only be, due to a deliberate, intentional act of Defendant or its agent.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs of slip and fall scene

Artt v. Orange Lake Country Club Realty, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-956-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 4911086 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In FLSA case seeking compensation for ?off the clock? work, court found that defendant?s request for any social media activity posted between 7AM and 7PM on any date between June 19, 2011 and Plaintiff?s termination was ?on its face overbroad, unduly burdensome and unreasonable?

Nature of Case: FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Social media

United States v. Shah, No. 5:13-CR-328-FL, 2015 WL 3605077 (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to find that contents of email and chats from gmail account could be authenticated as Google?s business records pursuant to ER 902(11) where the contents of the emails were automatically copied to and maintained upon Google?s servers finding that the ?knowledge? requirement was not satisfied and reasoning: ?Neither SHAHNN28@GMAIL.COM, nor any other originating source whose statements appear in the records produced by Google were under a ?business duty? to convey accurate information in their correspondence. Because the proffered ?finished product? is not the collective effort of ?business insiders,? who share a duty to ensure the accuracy of their statements, the court cannot allow those statements to be authenticated on the theory that they are Google?s self-proving business records under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11).?

Nature of Case: Intentional damage to a protected computer

Electronic Data Involved: Gmail emails and chats

City of Sterling Heights Gen. Emps.? Ret. Sys. V. Prudential Fin., Inc., No. 12-05275(MCA)(LDW), 2015 WL 5055241 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Citing its broad discretion to manage discovery and the limitations posed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel Defendant to identify additional custodians and utilize additional search terms and ordered that Plaintiffs would be allowed to choose up to 10 additional custodians and that Defendant must apply the four disputed search terms proposed by Plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Securities Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Commonwealth v. Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d 440 (Mass. July 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where murder victim sent text message to son stating that defendant was threatening to kill her and that she was scared and 6 minutes later called 911 to report that defendant was stabbing her, court did not err in allowing text message to son into evidence under the ?spontaneous utterance? exception to the hearsay rule

Nature of Case: Murder

Electronic Data Involved: Text message

Author - eDiscovery Import