eDiscovery Import – Page 70 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5597547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

Novick v. AXA Network LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5338427 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Conducting its cost-shifting analysis ?under the Zubulake standard,? court reasoned that defendants ?failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Johnson v. PPI Tech. Servs., L.P., No. 11-2773, 2013 WL 4508128 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to requests for social media content reasoning that although such content was potentially discoverable, Defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the material sought was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? and went on to reason that: ?Simply placing their mental and physical conditions at issue is not sufficient to allow PPI to rummage through Johnson’s or Croke’s social media sites. Almost every plaintiff places his or her mental or physical condition at issue, and this Court is reticent to create a bright-line rule that such conditions allow defendants unfettered access to a plaintiff’s social networking sites that he or she has limited from public view.?

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network content (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., No. 12-cv-2582 CW (JSC), 2013 WL 1767960 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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

Kwan Software Eng?g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC, No. C 12-03762 SI, 2013 WL 5487421 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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

Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s iphone where there was no dispute that the at-issue phone was not the phone that received the at-issue text message and where Plaintiff?s expert indicated that the relevant iphone had been backed up on plaintiff?s personal computer; court denied motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s personal computer where Defendant failed to demonstrate that the information sought was not reasonably accessible through other sources (e.g., the co-defendant that allegedly sent the at-issue text message), where plaintiff had offered to search for whatever information defendant sought, where plaintiff had already provided considerable data, and where Defendant?s request was essentially a fishing expedition; court reasoned that ?absent a showing of misconduct? raising questions regarding the completeness of Plaintiff?s expert?s search, no inspection by Defendant was warranted and ordered the parties to cooperate to create a protocol for plaintiff?s expert to use

Electronic Data Involved: iphone, contents of personal computer, text-message

RPM Pizza LLC v. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co., No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR, 2013 WL 6054551 (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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

Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264, 2013 WL 5979629 (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules

Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lynch v. Math-U-See, Inc., No. 13cv402-GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 2444662 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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

Author - eDiscovery Import