eDiscovery Import – Page 29 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bruno v. Bozutto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-874, 2015 WL 7294464 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff? spoliation of financial information forced experts to rely upon ?unverified secondhand data,? court found the reports ?exhibit[ed] neither sufficient reliability nor the requisite fit required for admission in federal practice? and granted Defendant?s motion to exclude

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel

Electronic Data Involved: Financial information (ESI, hard copy)

Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Coupons.com, Inc., 2015 WL 1189661 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Cost of converting native email and other native files into imaged format for purposes of production was one of many items considered by the court in defendant?s application for costs following grant of summary judgment. Despite plaintiffs argument that the requested expenses should only be approved if they pertain to documents actually produced to Plaintiff, court was satisfied with defendant?s explanation that the costs were ?actually and necessarily incurred in responding to the Plaintiff?s discovery demands? and allowed recovery of defendant?s tiffing costs, even though Defendant could not ?state with certainty whether every document that was converted was actually turned over to Plaintiff as being responsive to a particular demand.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Imaged native files

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? motion to compel production of defendant database records. Defendant argued that the harm to third parties from disclosure of personal information contained in the requested data outweighed the relevance of the information to plaintiffs? claim, and that the preparation, review, and production presented an undue burden. Finding that the requested data was highly relevant to the class certification requirements, the court concluded plaintiffs? need significantly outweighed privacy concerns given the option of producing subject to protective order and Plaintiffs? agreement to accept data with personal information redacted. Nor was the court persuaded by defendant?s burden argument, finding the estimate and explanation from plaintiffs? database consultant ?more persuasive, appropriate, and accurate? than that provided by defendant – particularly in light of modifications Plaintiffs made to their request after defendant clarified how the data was stored in their systems. The court also noted that defendant?s briefing failed to allege any facts supporting its assertion that the information was more readily available from other sources.

Nature of Case: Class Action; Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 2015 WL 1090180 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for temporary restraining order which requested restrictions on defendant?s assets, and orders prohibiting destruction of evidence, expediting discovery, allowing plaintiff access to defendant?s email and social media accounts, and for the return of a laptop because the court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. In asserting it would suffer irreparable harm, plaintiff argued defendant had demonstrated she would not observe her obligation to preserve evidence, but provided no evidence in support of this claim. Stating that ?suspicions are not a proper ground for injunctive relief,? the Court noted that counsel for each defendant were ?expected to advise their clients of their duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence and the serious consequences for failing to do so,? but denied further relief.

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, social media, laptop

L-3 Commcn?s Corp. v. Sparton Corp., 313 F.R.D. 661 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed topic of key word searching and sustained in part and overruled in part Defendant?s objections to the Magistrate Judge?s order to run all searches proposed by the Plaintiff where certain terms were vague or duplicative; court laid out framework for resolving disputes regarding search terms deemed overly burdensome, including a requirement that the parties confer in good faith before coming to the court

Nature of Case: Claims alleging defect in m

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

O?Connor v. Newport Hosp., 2015 WL 1225683 (R.I., Mar. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court vacated judgment in a medical malpractice case and remanded the case for a new trial where the trial justice admitted 3 exhibits without proper authentication, and exacerbated the error by allowing a biased, incorrect jury instruction which highlighted the information contained in the erroneously admitted exhibits, contributing to their prejudicial effect. Exhibits in question – whose purpose was to impeach plaintiff?s sole medical expert witness – were 2 printed versions of web pages, and a purported printout of an email, all of which were admitted over plaintiff?s objections after plaintiff?s expert witness was asked questions about their contents. With the record indicating no attempt to verify authenticity, no comments or findings from the justice with respect to authentication of any of the documents, nor indication on the record that defendant?s counsel made any representations to the trial justice regarding when or by whom the purported web page print outs were accessed and printed, the court concluded ?While we have not set a ?high hurdle to clear? with respect to authentication ? we hold that the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting exhibits A-C based solely on the brief testimony of one witness who was clearly unfamiliar with all three documents.?

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email; Web page

United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira, 2015 WL 1219535 (C.A.9 (Cal.) Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court reversed and remanded case to the district court with directions to dismiss indictment in this criminal case after finding that Homeland Security Investigations agent acted in bad faith and in violation of defendant?s due process rights in failing to preserve video footage of defendant the agent knew to be of exculpatory value to the defendant, which the court found was established by a transcript of the agent?s interview with the defendant. The court also noted that the government?s failure to take action in response to a letter from defense counsel to the Assistant United States Attorney requesting preservation of the video tapes related to the defendant?s arrest or events leading to the arrest was ?particularly disturbing,? but declined to decide whether that failure also constituted bad faith given that they had already found bad faith on the part of the HSI agent.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Author - eDiscovery Import