Key Insight: Court found Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Kozumi had control over non-party consultant?s emails absent any evidence that defendants could legally compel the non-party to produce the requested documents
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions for several discovery violations: 1) for failing to provide Plaintiffs with information regarding its process for scrubbing calling lists against the do not call list and for providing a deponent with insufficient knowledge of the issue, court characterized defendant?s behavior as ?obstructive, contumacious, and willful? and precluded the use of evidence about the creation and scrubbing of telemarketing campaign lists; 2) for failing to preserve ESI related to a particular calling campaign despite a duty to preserve, court issue finding of fact that the campaign was conducted for commercial purposes; 3) for obstructive behavior related to whether it shared lead lists to retailers, including inaccurate statements and for failing to preserve information related to the same, court imposed adverse inference
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court declined to quash subpoena based on the burden of reviewing the requested emails prior to production where, because the request sought all messages to or from particular persons, the court determined that no review of the emails was necessary (that is to say, if the email was to or from one of the identified persons, it was responsive to the subpoena and thus subject to production regardless of content); because the movant was a non-party, however, the court indicated its inclination to set a reasonable cost of production, before production was complete, to prevent the responding party from manipulating production to increase the award and to streamline production and ordered the requesting party to pay the responding non-party $420.00 ?as reasonable compensation for compliance?
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Pursuant to FRE 502(b), the court found privilege had not been waived where production of the at-issue document was inadvertent (instead of producing certain documents within a sub-folder, the whole folder was mistakenly produced), where reasonable steps were taken to prevent the disclosure (trained and supervised contract attorneys conducted privilege review and only 16 of 60,000 documents were inadvertently produced) and where reasonable and prompt steps were taken to rectify the error (plaintiff contacted defendant the day after it learned of the inadvertent production)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (infringement analysis)
Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to compel production of plaintiff’s personal computers’ hard drives for inspection or to compel Plaintiff?s counsel to perform an independent search of the computer and other electronic devices to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced and where Defendant cited a prior search by Plaintiff?s counsel that yielded additional responsive documents and Plaintiff?s counsel?s admission that she had never examined the contents of Plaintiff?s personal computers, the court acknowledged that the rules do not create a right of direct access to a party?s electronic information systems, but, also acknowledged that the history of Plaintiff?s document productions suggested that he may not ?fully understand his search obligations,? and thus the court ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to ensure that all responsive documents on the computers and other devices were located and produced but declined to allow Defendant to conduct its own examination absent a demonstration of good cause
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer
Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs, court allowed recovery of costs related to conversion of documents to TIFF file format which the parties agreed would be the format of production but declined to allow costs for hosting electronic documents
Electronic Data Involved: ESI/ taxable costs
Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of ESI in searchable form with metadata but Defendant produced TIFF images without metadata, court ordered re-production of ESI in accordance with parties’ agreement and amended the pretrial schedule
Electronic Data Involved: ESI and metadata
Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide ESI in the format requested, reasoning that defendant waived its objection by not timely asserting it, and also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had not shown why it was necessary for defendant to produce in the requested form where, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2)(E), a requesting party is not required to make such a justification
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.