eDiscovery Import – Page 76 – Electronic Discovery Law

U.S. ex rel Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS, 2012 WL 5415108 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the proper logging of privileged emails, the court adopted the position ?for which there is overwhelming support? (as cited in the opinion) ?that each email in an email string must be listed separately so that the court (and the opposing party) may make an attorney-client privilege determination with regard to each email in the string.?

Nature of Case: violations of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Anderson v. Otis Elevator Co., No. 11-10200, 2012 WL 5493383 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation without prejudice where plaintiffs ?demonstrated only a suspicion of prejudice and have not been able to establish bad faith conduct on the part of the Defendant?

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, metadata related to excel spreadsheet

Richards v. Hertz Corp., —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5503841 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the public contents of one plaintiff?s Facebook account established that it was ?reasonable to believe? that other relevant information may also be present but where lower court only directed plaintiff to produce certain relevant photographs, appellate court remanded with instruction that the court conduct in camera review of ?all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos? to determine which of those materials, if any, were relevant; as to a separate plaintiff where no showing of potential relevance was made, appellate court found lower court properly granted her motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents

AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5519060 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: On defendant?s appeal of lower court?s order requiring production of his iphone to opposing counsel for counsel?s review, appellate court found the order too broad and ?tantamount to ordering the production of his computer? and remanded the case with the order that plaintiff produce the iphone to the court for in camera review to identify what if any information was responsive to plaintiff?s discovery request

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: iPhone

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dokho v. Jablonowski, No. 306082, 2012 WL 5853754 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Appellate court found that trial court did not err in failing to grant Plaintiff?s request for an adverse presumption for insurance company?s failure to preserve a relevant file that was instead purged pursuant to the company?s document retention policy where Plaintiff provided no evidence of fraudulent conduct or intentional destruction; court further noted that Plaintiff failed to explain how the failure to provide an adverse inference (a lesser sanction than an adverse presumption) altered the court?s ?summary disposition analysis? reasoning that the court was already required to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party

Nature of Case: Claims arising from a slip and fall involving questions related to insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Underwriting file

Winchell v. Lopiccolo, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5933033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged brain trauma and impaired cognitive functioning and Defendants therefore sought unfettered access to Plaintiff?s Facebook page ?for the purpose of discovering what it reveals about Plaintiff?s ?ability to portray cognitive function?? (Defendants asserted that even the layout of the page would demonstrate cognitive function), the court denied the motion upon finding the request was overbroad

Nature of Case: Claims related to injuries resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents (Facebook)

United States v. Briggs, No. 10-CR-184S, 2012 WL 5866574 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court adopted lower court?s report and recommendation which denied defendant?s motion for sanctions related to the government?s discovery behaviors, including its production of ESI in searchable PDF but without the ability to manipulate the data, which defendant alleged failed to comply with the courts? prior order; court?s opinion, like prior opinions in this case, made clear the difficulties associated with a lack of controlling e-discovery case law/guidelines in criminal cases and put the Government ?on notice? that the Court would ?not hesitate to scrutinize the Government?s ESI discovery procedures to ensure responsiveness and fairness.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Database, esi

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(LBS)(JCF), 2012 Wl 3964742 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed in depth a myriad of important discovery issues (e.g. ?phasing, sampling, and proportionality?); as to the question of reasonable accessibility, court clarified that a showing of undue burden alone is insufficient to establish inaccessibility and that the alleged burden must be ?associated with some technological feature which inhibits accessibility? and, noting that defendant?s databases were not inaccessible because of such a feature, found that rule 26(b)(2)(B) presented ?no barrier? to discovery of the at-issue databases; turning to the question of proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court focused on section (iii) and, after discussing options to lessen Defendant?s burden, including sampling or a ?document dump,? found that most ESI was subject to production for reasons including the importance of the information to the case, the high financial stakes and Defendant?s ?ample resources,? the importance of the issues being litigated, and Defendant?s exaggeration of the burden and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives

Nature of Case: Putative class action asserting gender discrimination by employer

Electronic Data Involved: Database content

Author - eDiscovery Import