eDiscovery Import – Page 65 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

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

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

Bradford Techs., Inc. v. NCV Software.com, No. C 11-04621 EDL, 2013 WL 4033840 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was previously sanctioned for violating the stipulated protective order when Plaintiff?s President viewed Defendant?s source code; where Plaintiff?s president later deleted evidence related to his violation of the stipulated protective order despite a duty to preserve (arising from Defendant?s requests for preservation and two court orders requiring the same), made no effort to preserve the other contents of his laptop, and made ?inconsistent representations to the court?; and where a second employee claimed he was not notified of his preservation obligations and thus wiped the contents of his laptop (at a ?suspicious? time), including a relevant power point, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions absent a showing of prejudice and upon its determination that the orders requiring preservation were arguably ambiguous (?insofar as they required Plaintiff to preserve evidence while at the same time ordering Plaintiff to return discs and delete source code, as Defendants requested?) but did order a monetary award of reasonable expenses that the defendants incurred in taking expedited discovery regarding the source code violation and indicated that ?[t]he court may well allow? Plaintiff?s President?s credibility to be impeached at trial regarding his violation of the protective order

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

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of laptop(s)

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

Rodgers v. Rose Party Functions Corp., No. 10-CV-4780 (MKB), 2013 WL 6002375 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendants? duty to preserve video recording of plaintiff?s accident arose well within the two-week period before the video was erased per defendant’s document retention policies, as defendant should have anticipated litigation when defendant?s security personnel arranged for plaintiff to be taken by ambulance to a hospital for treatment of injuries sustained when she slipped, and if not then, the duty ?certainly arose? when plaintiff called defendant?s office manager and it became clear that plaintiff was seeking compensation for her injuries from defendant?s insurer; finding that video recording would have been relevant, court determined that an adverse inference instruction advising the jurors that they may infer that the video recording would have corroborated plaintiff?s allegations and rebutted defendants? assertions would suffice to restore plaintiff to the position she would have been had the recording been preserved

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage capturing plaintiff’s fall in stairwell

Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 772(BMC), 2013 WL 9447569 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not institute a written litigation hold despite its duty to preserve having arisen when it threatened to sue defendants, and, instead of producing the original of a particular thumb drive as ordered by the court, plaintiff copied contents of original thumb drive onto another (used) thumb drive and then deleted irrelevant files from thumb drive before producing drive to defendant, court found plaintiff was merely negligent and did not act in bad faith or with an intention of destroying or withholding relevant evidence; court declined to impose terminating sanctions or an adverse inference instruction given that defendant did not demonstrate severe prejudice, but ordered plaintiff to reimburse defendant for one-half of its costs, including attorneys? fees and expert costs, that it incurred in connection with litigating the spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising out of the collapse of a commercial relationship between the parties relating to credit card processing services

Electronic Data Involved: Thumb drive, email, spreadsheets

A.J. Amer Agency, Inc. v. Astonish Results, LLC, No. 12-351S, 2013 WL 9663951 (D.R.I. Feb. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Observing that the meet and confer requirement is not an empty formality, court ordered parties to engage in a substantive good faith conferral and to follow five directives: 1) plaintiff?s requests for material in electronic format should be based on what it has already, what it needs for this case, as well as what is reasonably accessible, mindful of the cost-shifting provisions in Rule 26(b)(2)(B); 2) parties should consider what approach would be least costly and burdensome to defendant for production of comparable websites with similar graphics; 3) only sales training materials actually reviewed by the sales team that presented to plaintiff were discoverable; 4) plaintiff should explore what material is already accessible to it using a password that it already has before exploring with defendant what needs to be produced with respect to particular software; 5) once the scope of appropriate discovery is clear, defendant should supplement its responses to specify whether documents exist or not

Nature of Case: Insurance agencies alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing arising from a marketing agreement between defendant to supply websites, digital marketing, training and consulting services

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; website templates, sales training materials

In re Heinz, 501 B.R. 746 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court found that evidence compelled conclusion that debtor?s spoliation of electronic evidence, failure to preserve both ESI as well backup paper documentation, and failure to produce thumb drive was willful and intentional given the timing during imminent or ongoing litigation, court declined to impose a specific sanction against the debtor such as a default judgment and instead drew an adverse inference against debtor to the extent it impacted the debtor?s overall credibility; court ultimately found that plaintiffs? claim against the debtor for $39,296, stemming from judgment obtained by plaintiffs against debtor for breach of contract, was not dischargeable

Nature of Case: Complaint to determine dischargeability

Electronic Data Involved: Thumb drive containing financial information from 2009 through 2011

Author - eDiscovery Import