eDiscovery Import – Page 39 – Electronic Discovery Law

Commonwealth v. Foster F., No. 13-P-1427, 2014 WL 6909045 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Because the relevancy and admissibility of the Facebook messages depended on their being authored by the juvenile, the judge was required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile authored them; while the evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s conclusion that the Facebook messages were authored by the juvenile, as the juvenile?s actions served as a basis for concluding that the records were authentic, the better practice would have been to instruct the jurors that, in order to consider the Facebook messages as evidence of the statements contained therein, they first needed to find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile was the author

Nature of Case: Juvenile court matter in which juvenile was adjudicated delinquent

Electronic Data Involved: Social networking Internet website messages

Samuel v. United Corp., No. ST-12-CV-457, 2014 WL 2608839 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to allow an adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant’s alleged destruction of critical video footage that preceded her fall, and reiterated prior guidance from the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands: “[U]pon reasonably foreseeable notice that evidence may be relevant to discovery, it is certainly not within the discretion of a store manager [or security officer] to determine what portion of the available recorded surveillance footage is relevant to anticipated litigation, even where surveillance video does not clearly show the cause of the accident”; court commented that routinely preserving only a minute and a half of footage prior to an accident teeters on the edge of being unreasonable, and recommended preservation of at least five minutes of surveillance footage of the area prior to the accident

Nature of Case: Slip-and-fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc., 18 F.Supp.3d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Observing that, generally, social media content is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, nevertheless, a defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that plaintiff has limited from public view, court denied defendant?s motion to compel, questioning the relevance of the material sought and finding that ?the burden of requiring all of the opt-in Plaintiffs to review all of their postings on potentially multiple social media sites over a period of four years and determine which posts relate to their job, hours worked, or this case, would be an ?extremely onerous and time-consuming task’?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Posts to social media accounts and private messages sent from social media sites

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

Connelly v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., No. 12-2660, 2014 WL 2003093 (E.D. La. May 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at point in time at which surveillance videotape was overridden pursuant to VA’s 30-day retention policy, VA was on notice that the surveillance tape was relevant to litigation; plaintiff also failed to show any bad faith with respect to the alleged destruction of video surveillance

Nature of Case: Federal Tort Claims Act claim for slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

E.A.F.F. v. United States, No. SA-08-CA-124-XR, 2014 WL 1652598 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to $65,000 for scanning expenses as taxable costs where discovery production was voluminous and parties had agreed that defendants would produce their responsive documents in electronic format, court ruled that scanning of documents to create digital duplicates amounted to “making copies of materials” under Section 1920(4); however, because invoices indicated that requested costs may include more than just scanning, court would allow defendants to supplement bill of costs to specifically identify which portion of invoice was for scanning/making copies or to clarify that the entire cost was, in fact, for scanning/making copies

Nature of Case: Unaccompanied alien minors brought action against Office of Refugee Resettlement alleging they were physically and sexually abused while in detention awaiting final adjudication of their immigration status

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic images of paper documents

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

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Sprint Commc?ns Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-JWL, 11-2685-JWL, 11-2686-JWL, 2014 WL 1794552 (D. Kan. May 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Evaluating parties’ competing discovery protocols, court noted that defendants had not asked Sprint to collect documents from 60+ custodians, but, rather, faced with Sprint?s failure to identify potential custodians in violation of the agreed discovery order, defendants started suggesting people and asked Sprint either to search those individuals? files or explain why production from particular custodians on list was not necessary; court disapproved of Sprint?s continued failure to work with defendants to reach a reasonable solution, rejected as ?clearly unreasonable? Sprint?s proposal to collect responsive documents from only 12 new custodians, and ordered Sprint to sit down with defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue; court further ordered Sprint to include in its document searches a ?human review? of hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Consolidated cases involving patent infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; documents produced in prior litigations; metadata

Author - eDiscovery Import