eDiscovery Import – Page 28 – Electronic Discovery Law

Henry v. Abbott Labs., No. 2:12-cv-841, 2015 WL 5729344 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Despite duty to preserve personnel records created by regulation (29 CFR ? 1602.14), court found no ?regulatory violation? in the destruction of documents subject to preservation until a ?final disposition? of the action where documents were destroyed following Plaintiff?s failure to appeal the dismissal of her case; court also found that even if Defendant had an ongoing duty to preserve (because the case was eventually reinstated upon Plaintiff?s motion for relief from the dismissal), there was no evidence of requisite culpability where Defendant reasonably believed (as did the court) that the case had been ?finally adjudicated;? the court also questioned the relevance of the at-issue documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: personnel evaluations, surveys related to promotion

Burnett v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?14207, 2015 WL 1650439 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?20976, 2015 WL 1650447 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?06529, 2015 WL 1650428 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ralser v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 13-2799, 2015 WL 5016351 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI

AJ Holding Grp. v. IP Holdings, 129 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Boxer F2 L.P. v. Flamingo West, Ltd. No. 14?cv?00317?PAB?MJW, 2015 WL 2106101 (D. Colo. May 04, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court said it appreciated defendants? decision to ultimately comply with its discovery obligations by producing 16,600 pages of accounting records the day after the motions hearing on the matter, but said that the untimely disclosure did not have any bearing on the fact that defendants did not allow plaintiffs access to all of their accounting records and altered those records to which they did allow access to conceal material information without valid justification. Finding that defendants acted in bad faith for having failed to comply with three court orders compelling discovery and having done so knowingly and intentionally, court granted motion for sanctions, including adverse inferences and cost and fees.

Nature of Case: Lease

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting records

Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Bumpers v. Austal, U.S.A. LLC, No. 08-00155-KD-N, 2015 WL 6870122 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to recover for emails and other ESI compiled by Plaintiff?s expert as ?copying costs? (specifically, Defendant sought ?recovery to produce emails as part of discovery and to obtain already compiled electronic data to support its Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Bradley?s testimony, characterizing them as ?digital copies? necessarily obtained for use in the case?), court reasoned that the costs did not ?relate to a deposition transcript or a true ?digital copy,?? that ?creating an electronic database/compilation or enhanced digital files ?goes well beyond the statutory intent? for taxable digital copies,? and that Defendant had not explained how the data was ?necessarily obtained for use in the case rather than the convenience of counsel? and denied the request

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Webb v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., No. 13-1947(JRT/JJK), 2015 WL 317215 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court overruled parties’ objections to Magistrate Judge’s order addressing scope of discovery where underlying court properly considered and applied the principle of proportionality; addressing defendant’s alleged costs of production, court reasoned in part that ?The fact that a corporation has an unwieldy record keeping system which requires it to incur heavy expenditures of time and effort to produce requested documents is an insufficient reason to prevent disclosure of otherwise discoverable information.?

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Malibu Media, LLC v. Harrison, No. 1:12-CV-117-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 3545250 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant violated his duty to preserve when he discarded his laptop after it allegedly crashed but declined to impose default judgement or an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith, the district court upheld the decision not to impose default judgment but, reasoning that the credibility of defendant?s explanation was best left to the jury, held that the jury would be instructed that if it found bad faith, it could infer the computer?s contents were unfavorable

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Author - eDiscovery Import