eDiscovery Import – Page 49 – Electronic Discovery Law

Klipsch Group, Inc. v. Big Box Store Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 6283 (VSB)(MHD), 2014 WL 904595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to issue litigation hold and their belated oral instructions were inadequate both in form and content, court authorized plaintiff to undertake a forensic investigation into state of defendants’ computer systems for purpose of determining likelihood of document destruction, likely nature and volume of any such destroyed documents, whether some or all of those documents may be recovered, and the status of sales information on the computers; court deferred ruling on plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference instruction or cost-shifting pending results of investigation

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and other ESI

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

Lopez v. Cate, No. 1:10-cv-01773-AWI-SKO, 2014 WL 3615480 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for preliminary injunction and preservation order, reasoning as to the request for a preservation order that defendants had issued a litigation hold letter and that plaintiff had not shown that such an order was needed due to ?any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or destroyed during the pendency of this action?

Nature of Case: Civil rights action (pro se prisoner)

Electronic Data Involved: [F]iles and records, including e-files and intact meta data

Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA, 2014 WL 789086 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court sustained Microsoft’s objection to special master’s order granting adverse inference instruction in light of finding that Microsoft’s failure to preserve source code was negligent rather than willful or grossly negligent; a finding of bad faith is required in order for an adverse inference instruction to be appropriate

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Rodriguez v. City of New York, No. 114739/10, 2014 WL 2438436, May 29, 2014 (unpublished)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s cross-motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction, finding that it was particularly concerning that defendant Department of Education permitted surveillance video depicting at least some of the activity involved in litigation to be taped over where a police investigation immediately ensued, a Notice of Claim was filed by plaintiff, and the faculty of the school thought to view the video soon after the events occurred, and in the case of one teacher, prior to her deposition

Nature of Case: Student assaulted during school field trip sued for inadequate supervision and negligent hiring

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Crawford v. City of New London, No. 3:11CV1371 (JBA), 2014 WL 2168430 (D. Conn. May 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not appropriate where original footage on hard drive was recorded over in compliance with standard retention procedures, because: (1) defendants preserved a DVD copy of the video per standard practice, (2) plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the copy was of a lesser quality than the original, other than to allege that it was stored in a format that was inconvenient for enhancement, (3) defendants did not have control over the original security footage nor were they involved in its destruction, (4) recording over original footage occurred long before duty to preserve was triggered, and (5) there was no evidence beyond the fact of destruction itself that would support an inference that the original recording was unfavorable to defendants

Nature of Case: Excessive force claims in connection with plaintiff’s arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing original surveillance footage of plaintiff’s arrest

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences, No. SA-11-CV-163-XR, 2014 WL 1787813 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order barring defendants from obtaining CEO’s e-mails during discovery, finding that CEO had potentially relevant information that defendants might not be able to obtain from other custodians and that CEO’s high level role did not make discovery of his e-mails any more or less burdensome than producing e-mails of other executives

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail of CEO who joined plaintiff after lawsuit was filed

Lawrence v. Dependable Med. Transp. Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-0417-HRH, 2014 WL 2510623 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs supported their motion for partial summary judgment with plainly privileged e-mails between defendants and their attorneys, which defendants had inadvertently produced, court granted defendants’ motion to strike and ruled that, because plaintiffs had failed to comply with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), they would not be allowed to use the e-mails for any purpose

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged e-mails

Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for appointment of a neutral discovery expert and instead directed parties to meet and confer in person to create a plan to fully resolve their discovery dispute; court issued various directives and deadlines and recommended that plaintiffs send at least one paralegal or other individual with knowledge of or the capability to understand defendants? electronic and paper filing systems, to work with an appointed representative from defendants? side to search through defendants? electronic databases, and that defendants should appoint someone who could fully explain what is in the databases and assist in the search process

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic databases

McDaniel v. Loyola Univ. Med. Center, No. 13-cv-06500, 2014 WL 1775685 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendants would destroy discoverable information or that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without a preservation order, court denied motion for preservation order as superfluous and needlessly burdensome where defendants were fully apprised of the scope and gravity of their preservation duties and the consequences of breaching them

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data and e-mail

Author - eDiscovery Import