eDiscovery Import – Page 36 – Electronic Discovery Law

Icon-IP Pty Ltd., v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 12-cv-03844-JST (MEJ), 2014 WL 6788182 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought to compel Defendant to produce additional documents relevant to their design infringement claims by searching Defendant?s emails and electronic design documents. Defendant argued that this comprehensive search of electronic design documents would be ?overly burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,? and conducted a reasonable search responsive to Plaintiffs request, but did not explain why and how the comprehensive search would be burdensome. Defendant complied with a stipulation agreeing to specific email search terms and custodians, subject to objections which Plaintiff did not respond to. The court ordered that Plaintiff was entitled to additional discovery of electronic design documents because Defendant did not meet the burden of showing the request was unduly burdensome. However, since Defendant did comply with the stipulation, further email searches were not needed.

Nature of Case: Patent Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., No. 12 Civ. 592(DAB)(JLC), 2014 WL 3610946 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for spoliation of contents of Plaintiff?s work laptop (by deleting the data and reissuing the computer to another employee) where despite the court?s finding that defendant had been grossly negligent in its failure to preserve, a presumption of relevance was not warranted and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the lost documents would have supported his claim; regarding the destruction of plaintiff?s supervisor?s laptop (who had resigned), the court ordered an adverse inference where the court found that the failure to preserve was grossly negligent and where defendant?s conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a finding that the evidence was unfavorable to it (notably, the court indicated it ?[did] not matter? who had wiped the hard drive because defendant should have taken steps to preserve the data well in advance of the supervisor?s resignation); court ordered an adverse inference for defendant?s failure to produce certain evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s laptop and supervisor’s laptop

Finkle v. Howard Cnty., Md., No. SAG?13?3236, 2014 WL 6835628, (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court granted Defendant?s Motion for Protective Order and denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, finding that Plaintiff?s Interrogatory seeking the identification of all email accounts, social media services, internet discussion groups, cellular telephone or text messaging services used by certain County employees from January 2010 through the present, for the purpose of issuing a subpoena to the appropriate service providers, would impose an undue burden on Defendant and that Plaintiff was not lawfully entitled to the content of those accounts under the Stored Communications Act (?SCA?); regarding its reliance on the SCA, the court specifically reasoned that ?there is no reason to invite an unfettered ?fishing expedition? into the personal communications of non-party employees without a viable reason to believe that relevant information would be accessible to Plaintiff or would be contained therein.?

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination (Title VII)

Electronic Data Involved: Account information for all email, social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), discussion groups, text messaging services, etc.

Warren Indus., Inc. v. PMG Ind. Corp., No. 13-CV-13026, 2014 WL 5705011 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ argument that they did not have access to the email of defendants? Chairman of the Board because the email was kept on a server in Germany that defendants did not own or control, and ruled that, although defendants’ IT manager may not be able to access the Chairman’s email from his Indiana location, the Chairman, as Chairman of the Board of defendant companies, “indeed has possession, custody, and control over his own e-mail communications, regardless of where the server containing these e-mails [was] located; court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and awarded plaintiff its attorney’s fees and costs associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on server in Germany

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court erred in granting remarkable discovery sanctions of procedural “death penalty” together with over $1 million in sanctions against plaintiffs, as destroyed evidence did not go to heart of case, but was, instead, impeachment evidence; record did not reflect the required consideration by trial court of appropriate lesser sanctions or an explanation of why case was exceptional and lesser sanctions would be inadequate; and court wrongly awarded attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs for the entire case rather than those related only to the sanctionable conduct

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp v. Banco BRJ S.A., 11-CV-1529 (KMW) 2014 WL 7051380 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court found Plaintiff committed spoliation when a computer containing key documents was destroyed. Court imposed sanctions of precluding evidence derived from the computer from being presented at trial and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney fees and costs. Upon review, Court upheld the spoliation ruling but imposed a mandatory adverse inference instead of the preclusion order. Court agreed that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve, was culpable in the destruction of the evidence, and the data that was destroyed was relevant to the Defendant?s claims. The court further elaborated that Plaintiff?s duty to preserve did not end when the computer allegedly crashed, and that Plaintiff should have made reasonable efforts to recover the data it contained. Saying that the spoliation prejudiced the defendant in a ?severe way? that can only be corrected by a ?substantial sanction,? the Court found that a mandatory adverse inference was the best way to repair the damage to Defendant without being a ?harsh measure given the extent of Plaintiff?s reliance of the documents??

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of “crashed” laptop computer

XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., No. 12-2071, 2014 WL 295053 (E.D. La. Jan 27, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s complaints regarding format of defendant’s production of documents, because plaintiff failed to make any Rule 34(b)(2)(B) ESI specification in its discovery requests and defendant’s production of scanned images on OCR readable disc was a reasonably usable form; court ordered defendant to explain its document naming and numbering system to the extent it had not already done so, but denied any additional logistical relief, stating: ?Whatever burden XL and its counsel face in reviewing these materials that they themselves have requested is rightfully borne by them.?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Database of more than 808,000 documents consisting of more than four million pages

State v. Francis, 455 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court reversed conviction and remanded for new trial based on error in admission of text messages found on Blackberry in Defendant?s possession at the time of his arrest where the State argued that ownership of the Blackberry could be inferred and failed to establish that at-issue text messages were authored by the defendant, which in turn, negated the state?s arguments for admitting the outgoing text messages as well: ?There was no evidence that Appellant owned the BlackBerry or, more importantly, authored the messages. The fact that Appellant possessed the phone at the time of arrest is insufficient by itself to establish that Appellant authored text messages sent hours or days earlier. Because the State failed to establish that the text messages were authored by Appellant, the outgoing messages were not admissible as admissions by a party opponent and, thus, the incoming messages were not admissible under any identified exception to the hearsay rule.?

Nature of Case: Drug conviction

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages from Blackberry

Yontz v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-066 2014 WL 5109741 (S.D.Ohio Oct.10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In this FMLA interference case, Defendant?s motion for summary judgment was denied, in part because the court found merit in Plaintiff?s spoliation claim. Defendant claimed there was no willful destruction of relevant email that was missing from their computer system. However, in deposition Defendant stated that ?there has not been any automatic deletion? from its system, and ?the only way that emails could have been deleted?would have been manually by an end user.? The Court found that to the extent email was missing a reasonable juror could find it was deleted by an employee. Additionally, the required element of a culpable state of mind was shown by Defendant?s failure to implement a litigation hold, which was a violation of their company policy. ?Where Dole?s own policies require retention, and there is testimony documents were not retained but manually deleted by the user, there is a genuine issue for the jury.?

Nature of Case: Employment Law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Author - eDiscovery Import