eDiscovery Import – Page 63 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of Kickapoo Reservation in Kan. v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint Dist. No. 7, No. 06-CV-2248-CM-DJW (D. Kan. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained District’s objection that it did not have duty to produce documents from persons no longer associated with the District who were not parties to the litigation, as plaintiff failed to establish that District had the necessary control over requested documents or that District had legal right to obtain such documents on demand from former District board members, staff or employees; court further denied motion to compel forensic mirror imaging of computers and other electronic devices personally owned by current and former District board members, employees and staff, as District already produced forensic mirror images of two District computers, District lacked possession or control of personally-owned computers, there was no showing that any personally-owned computers of board members, employees and staff were used by those persons for District business, and court had significant concerns about intrusiveness of request and privacy rights of individuals to be affected

Nature of Case: Dispute over water rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Westdale Recap Props., Ltd. v. NP/I & G Wakefield Commons, LLC, No. 5:11-CV-659-D, 2013 WL 5424844 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where producing party defended tardiness of production by explaining it had been awaiting agreement on protocol for ESI, as contemplated in parties? discovery plan, and proposed search terms from plaintiffs to conduct a supplemental search of ESI pursuant to such protocol, court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs? motion to compel, setting deadlines for plaintiffs to provide different custodians, dates and/or keyword search terms, and for production, resolving that production should be in the form of searchable PDF?s with the option of requesting particular ESI in native format if there is a demonstrable need, and requiring defendant to prepare privilege log meeting requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) and duly signed by counsel for any otherwise responsive documents withheld on grounds of privilege

Nature of Case: Fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Frazer/Exton Dev., L.P., 503 B.R. 620 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied debtors? motion to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement with debtors? largest creditor and plan of reorganization because — notwithstanding that creditor failed to search all potential sources of ESI and failed to produce responsive documents in what court described as ?incompetent and reckless discovery foul-up? that should not have occurred — debtors could not, as a matter of law, obtain the relief they sought under Rule 60 and it would therefore be futile for the court to reopen the record for the purpose of allowing the debtors to file a time-barred Rule 60 motion

Nature of Case: Debtors sought to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement and plan of reorganization

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-02082-APG-CWH, 2013 WL 5332410 (D. Nev. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge found that defendant had waived attorney-client privilege as to privileged documents provided to testifying expert for use in preparing his expert report, given that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires disclosure of ?the facts or data considered by the witness in forming [his/her opinion(s)],? and expert testified, under oath, that he reviewed the documents he was provided; magistrate judge further ruled that other privileged documents inadvertently produced by defendant were not subject to waiver as parties’ agreed protective order contained strict time line and process for filing motions to challenge claims of privilege after an inadvertent disclosure, and plaintiff did not follow the process

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents

Ford Motor Co. v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., No. 08-CV-13503, 2013 WL 5435184 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge evaluated plaintiffs? work product, attorney-client privilege, joint defense and common interest privilege claims, set out various findings and guidelines, and ordered plaintiffs to update their respective privilege logs and produce certain documents; magistrate judge further ruled that, because Ford had earlier produced voluminous documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, it had no further duty under Rule 34 or otherwise to organize and label the documents to correspond with individual requests for production

Nature of Case: Current and former property owners sued former operator of manufactured gas plant

Electronic Data Involved: Environmental investigation, remedy assessment and allocation related documents

Magnuson v. Newman, No. 10 Civ. 6211(JMF), 2013 WL 5380387 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court observed there was little question that defendants’ disclosures had not included documents that were once in their possession that would be relevant to the case, as they had failed to produce any emails between and among themselves and any drafts of contracts relating to the issues of the lawsuit, court declined to impose discovery sanctions because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing that defendants had an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time it was destroyed; court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ admitted failure to back up their computers or put a litigation hold in place constituted per se gross negligence, and stated that a party?s failure to adopt good preservation practices was one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought by a group of television production professionals and companies

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and documents

Hixson v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-00871-RCJ-PAL, 2013 WL 3677203 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: No sanctions for Defendant?s failure to produce a particular relevant email where the email was subject to Defendant?s automatic deletion policy and where the court ?was satisfied? that the email was in fact automatically deleted before Defendant was on notice that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Hostile Work Environment

Electronic Data Involved: Email subject to automatic deletion policy

Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche, No. 2:05-cv-00610-DAE-VCF, 2013 WL 5491952 (D. Nev. Sep. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court adopted magistrate judge?s report and recommendation that plaintiffs? motion for terminating sanctions, based in part on defendants? botched production of database, be denied in light of additional evidence (consisting of supplemental report by defense expert stating that database was not corrupt but merely ?offline,? expert testimony and in-court demonstration of operation of database, and information regarding a prior database crash) presented by the parties after the district court vacated different magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that plaintiffs? motion for terminating sanctions be granted, that defendants? answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against defendants; in light of additional evidence, magistrate judge found that (1) defendants did produce a mirror image of the database as ordered by the court and there was no basis for sanctions, and (2) something done to plaintiffs’ copy of the database after it was provided to plaintiffs caused the error message

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and various state-law claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database

Out of the Box Developers LLC v. Logicbit Corp., No. 10 CVS 8327, 2013 WL 3090303 (N.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)

Author - eDiscovery Import