eDiscovery Import – Page 47 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hosch v. BAE Sys. Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00825 (AJT/TCB), 2014 WL 1681694 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered dismissal of Plaintiff?s claims with prejudice and payment of Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred for numerous discovery motions and forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s electronic devices for Plaintiff?s bad faith spoliation including defiance of the court?s discovery orders by refusing to submit certain devices and accounts for forensic inspection and by refusing to produce certain information and the destruction of ESI by wiping both his iPhone and Blackberry device, among other things

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (harassment, retaliation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic inspection of devices (iPhone, Blackberry)and accounts

Miller v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 49A02-1307-PL-619, 2014 WL 1318698 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Although there may have remained a genuine issue of material fact concerning spoliation based on employer’s failure to preserve contents of employee?s computer or make a complete archival backup of the contents when the computer was replaced, summary judgment in favor of the employers was properly granted since the employers were immune from the claims under Section 230(c) of the federal Communications Decency Act as providers of an interactive computer service (i.e., company network and access to internet)

Nature of Case: Individual alleged defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against employers of authors of anonymous comments posted regarding online article

Electronic Data Involved: Comments posted regarding online article; contents of computer used by author of comments

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., No. 11-3684 DMC, 2014 WL 1494517 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to take a 30(b)(6) deposition to inquire regarding whether Plaintiff was ?using the appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,? based on Defendant?s expert?s determination that Plaintiff had ?some of most (sic) sophisticated and comprehensive state-of-the-art document search and location tools? and the assertion that ?Philips refuses to use these tools? and where Plaintiff indicated that it had always used ?a custodian-based approach to collecting ESI[ ],? and that it outsourced its collection to Microsoft Online Services and did not have a contract that permitted the type of searching and collecting suggested by the defendant, the court found that Plaintiff had adequately established the reasonableness of its approach and also reasoned that while the deposition itself would not be a burden, it would open the door to potentially burdensome additional discovery that was unlikely to be productive and thus was not warranted

Nature of Case: Appeal of decision of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

EEOC v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 2177796 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant utilized third party?s hiring program to allow applicants to apply online, etc. and had limited access to the system?s data (i.e., limitations on the format and content of reports from the system), the court found that the data that could be regularly accessed by the defendant per its contract with the third party was accessible and subject to production and that data housed by the third party and not readily available to the defendant was ?not reasonably accessible . . . because of both undue burden and cost? and ordered that if the EEOC wanted the inaccessible data, it would have to pay for it

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Kronos)

Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, No C12-1142JLR, 2014 WL 1356205 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that Defendant and its counsels? ?lackluster search for documents, failure to implement a litigation hold, deletion of evidence, refusal to cooperation with Plaintiffs in the discovery process (particularly as evidenced by its withholding of information regarding both the backup tapes and its interpretation of the parties? Stipulated Order), reliance on a recklessly false declaration, shifting litigation positions, and inaccurate representations to the court constitute bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith? and ordered payment of Plaintiffs? attorneys fees ?incurred due to Corinthian?s bad faith discovery practices? and also ordered fines against Defendant ($25,000) and its counsel ($10,000)

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation (discrimination, hostile work environment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email, ESI on backup tapes

Illiana Surgery and Med. Care Ctr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., NO. 2:07 cv 3, 2014 WL 1094455 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following evaluation of the relevant eight part test, court declined to shift the costs of producing emails stored on Defendant?s backup system pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (inaccessible data) but placed limitations on the discovery allowed and ordered Defendant to restore eight weeks of backup tapes at its own expense and to search them for the requested emails and invited Plaintiff to renew its motion if, after Defendant?s search was complete, it could show that ?further exploration? was necessary

Nature of Case: Insurance Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park, No. 13-cv-03323-MMC (JCS), 2014 WL 2567914 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant?s duty to preserve arose upon threat of litigation and where he was reminded of the obligation in correspondence with opposing counsel and then ordered by the court to preserve, the court found that the level of culpability rose with each indication and thus found that the defendant had failed to preserve ESI in bad faith but, absent evidence of the level of resulting prejudice (attempts to recover the deleted data had not yet been undertaken), declined to impose a an adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trade secret, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on multiple devices

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Domanus v. Lewicki, —F.3d—, 2014 WL 408723 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Circuit court found no abuse of discretion for District Court?s imposition of default judgment (or its prior finding of contempt) – which was a more drastic sanction than was originally imposed by the magistrate judge – where Defendants? discovery behaviors, including failing to produce documents as ordered, avoiding depositions, and failing to preserve potentially relevant ESI (and providing conflicting stores about what happened to the hard drive, including that it had been taken apart and given to a defendant?s children to play with) justified the harsh sanction imposed

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive (emails), bank records

Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Vistana Condominium Owners Assoc., No. 2:12-cv-01324-JAD-NJK, 2014 WL 2041950 (D. Nev. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced documents as they were received from third parties and with metadata allowing plaintiff to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title, court found that the production ?largely complied? with Rule 34 and the obligation to produce documents as kept in the usual course of business and that sanctions were not warranted but also found that the responses created unnecessary obstacles to the plaintiff and ordered defendant to indicate whether the documents it produced were actually responsive, reasoning that plaintiff should not have to ?guess at which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Author - eDiscovery Import