eDiscovery Import – Page 71 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fairview Ritz Corp. v. Borough of Fairview, No. 09-875 (JLL), 2013 WL 5435060 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon motion for reconsideration based on Plaintiff?s location and production of a document previously found to have been spoliated, court found that an adverse inference and monetary sanctions predicated on the finding of spoliation were no longer appropriate but ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for the delay and Defendants? protracted efforts to procure the document?s production

Electronic Data Involved: Single document (ESI)

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.)

Prowess, Inc. v. Raysearch Labs. AB, No. WDQ-11-1357, 2013 WL 1976077 (D. Md. May 9, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

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)

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

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged 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

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

Cobb v. Commonwealth, No. 1526-12-1, 2013 WL 5744363 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Verizon Wireless text message records reflecting text messages sent by and between shooter?s cell phone and defendant?s cell phone, as such records constituted “originals” or “duplicate originals” for purposes of the best evidence rule, and there was sufficient foundation for the records? admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule as reliability of records was established through testimony of the custodian of records for Verizon Wireless that the records were accurate, they were made in the regular course of business, they were relied upon by Verizon Wireless in the transaction of business, and they were made contemporaneously with the creation of the text messages themselves

Nature of Case: Defendant was found guilty of murder, attempted robbery and other crimes

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

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

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

Author - eDiscovery Import