eDiscovery Import – Page 80 – Electronic Discovery Law

Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-275-D, 2012 WL 6809721 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to award costs for imaging electronic information for document production where the court found that ?those costs fall within ?the cost of making copies of any materials? and were ?necessarily obtained for use in the case?? pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4) but declined to award costs incurred to purchase hard drives for document production where the court reasoned that the drives were reusable and ?properly considered overhead.?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable cost related to production of ESI

Lakes Gas Co. v. Clark Oil Trading Co., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (D. Kan. June 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In a brief discussion of spoliation, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions where, despite the fact that it ?seemed clear that there was some loss of evidence ? in the form of email and/or ?instant messages? ? at a time [Plaintiff] knew litigation was imminent,? the evidence suggested that the loss was inadvertent, there was no claim of bad faith or evidence to support such a finding, defendant?s claims of prejudice were largely speculative and defendant did not aggressively pursue the issue of spoliation; court?s analysis stated that ?in these circumstances? (referencing apparent inadvertence of the loss and lack of a claim of bad faith), ?the court looks to the culpability of those involved and the relevance of the proof to the issues at hand?

Nature of Case: Action to recover payment for propane transfers based on conversion and unjust enrichment theories

Electronic Data Involved: Email and/or instant messages

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

YCB Int?l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., No. 09-CV-7221, 2012 WL 3069683 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs failed to take appropriate steps to preserve information, including failing to suspend their document destruction policy and failing to issue a litigation hold, which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents (but, as the court concluded, not ESI), the court declined to impose drastic sanctions but recommended that the jury be instructed about the failure to preserve (but not instructed to draw any inferences based on that destruction) and recommended that plaintiffs be ordered to pay $1000 to defendant to ?partially compensate? it for attorneys? fees incurred by its motion and to pay $1000 to the court clerk

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy inspection reports

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that the deliberative process privilege was subject to a timeliness requirement and, where government asserted the possibility that documents used at deposition were subject to the deliberative process privileged at the end of a deposition but waited ?roughly six months? to definitively assert the privilege and another ?nearly four months? to communicate that assertion to Plaintiff, the court held the privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of Cost Accounting Standards

Electronic Data Involved: String of emails

Blount v. Tate, No. 7:11CV00091, 2012 WL 4341053 (W.D. Va. Aug 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s allegations of spoliation for defendants? loss of potentially relevant video footage, court declined to impose sanctions because it could not find that defendants had the necessary culpable mind reasoning that 1) defendants? production of other relevant video footage of the same event and another, similar event, contradicted plaintiff?s claims that defendants feared the video would cause them to lose the lawsuit, 2) that ?digital information can be destroyed or hopelessly misplaced in a data base at the touch of a button, without warning or recourse, and the prison?s system for preserving footage included three transition points when a technician?s inadvertent error could have destroyed or misplaced the? relevant footage, and 3) that the footage of the incident involving the plaintiff was not the only footage lost, suggesting that ?the event causing that loss was not intended to harm [Plaintiff?s] case?

Nature of Case: Eight Amendment violations, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Camcorder footage

FDIC v. Appleton, No. CV-11-476-JAK (PLAx), 2014 WL 10245383 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced Relativity database with some 700,000 documents culled from its main server using search terms, and defendants complained there was no apparent logic to database and they could not tell what documents were responsive to what requests, court sided with defendants and ordered plaintiff to create files in Relativity into which it would place documents responsive to each particular request

Nature of Case: Receiver brought action against former officers and directors of failed bank

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shutterfly Inc. v. Foreverarts, Inc., No. CR 12-3671 SI, 2012 WL 2911887 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted ex parte motion for temporary injunction prohibiting destruction of relevant ESI where plaintiff showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, that it would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction if defendants were to destroy evidence, and that the prohibition against destruction of evidence would not burden defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

Author - eDiscovery Import