eDiscovery Import – Page 89 – Electronic Discovery Law

Registe v. State, No. S12A1190, 2012 WL 5381248 (Ga. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found cell phone provider?s voluntary release of non-content records was supported by good faith belief that there was an ongoing emergency where the company received information from the police that its records could help to identify an ?at-large suspect of a double homicide committed within a day of the request and that the suspect presented a present and immediate danger? and thus the release of records complied with the Stored Communications Act and a motion to suppress was properly denied

Nature of Case: Double murder

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone records

United States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Use of work email waived marital privileged where, despite the lack of a computer usage policy at the time the emails were sent, the policy in effect at the time of the investigation stated that there was no expectation of privacy as to emails sent, received, accessed or STORED on the system and where the defendant ?did not take any steps to protect the emails in question, even after he was on notice of his employer?s policy permitting inspection of emails stored on the system at the employer?s discretion.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails sent from workplace computer

In re Specs, No. C 10-04250 YGR (DMR), 2012 WL 4120246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court ordered sanctions for Plaintiffs? violation of a court order compelling production where Plaintiffs certified their production was complete and thereafter made at least four additional significant productions such that the court concluded that Plaintiffs? certification of completeness was either ?knowingly false, or ? made without confirming the adequacy of their collection and production efforts? and ordered payment of reasonable expenses including attorneys fees and that Plaintiffs file certification that their discovery is complete and that any documents produced thereafter could not be used by Plaintiff at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Phillip M. Adam & Assocs. V. Dell Computer Corp., No. 2012-1238, 2013 WL 1092719 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that the district court erred in imposing an adverse inference for failure to preserve absent evidence of bad faith and thus reversed the district court?s imposition of an adverse inference sanction

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Roxane Labs. Inc. v. Abbot Labs., No. 2:12-cv-312, 2013 WL 1829569 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff argued that production of the requested ESI would be unduly burdensome because of the lack of a ?centralized electronic document system? which would require it to ask ?hundreds of employees to search their electronic documents,? and would require ?significant effort to review and produce,? and where Plaintiff also argued that a 30(b)(6) deposition would be a less burdensome method of obtaining discovery, the court noted the lack of information provided to establish the burden alleged and reasoned that ?the mere fact that a party does not have a centralized electronic document system? does not establish undue burden and granted defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Patent litigation seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Townsend v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., No. 11AP-672, 2012 WL 2467047 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to conduct forensic analysis of defendant?s email and electronic data systems where defendant?s employee admitted to sending a highly relevant email that was never produced and where defendant failed to establish that production ?would incur undue burden or expense?; court?s analysis included consideration of whether deleted emails were discoverable (yes) and the need for a protocol to protect the producing party?s privilege, confidential information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Finnerty v. Stiefel Labs. Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that costs related to the creation of an electronic database solely for the benefit of Plaintiff?s counsel were not taxable as fees for exemplification

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., No. 11-2090-CM-DJW, 2012 WL 940270 (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that ?Defendant?s failure to produce any ESI, such as emails, attachments, exhibits, and word processing documents raise[d] justifiable concerns that Defendant may have 1) failed to preserve relevant evidence, or 2) failed to conduct a reasonable search for ESI responsive to Plaintiff?s discovery requests? and thus scheduled an evidentiary hearing and ordered Defendant to be prepared to present evidence on its preservation and search efforts (specific topics identified in court?s order)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Miscellaneous ESI

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Tandem Indus., 485 Fed. Appx. 516 (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering Defendant?s argument for an adverse inference where his former employer failed to produce his former work laptop and files, the court noted that the ?undisputed evidence show[ed] that Colgate destroyed the data on the laptop shortly after Flower?s retirement,? and concluded that: ?When data is destroyed pursuant to normal recordkeeping practices (and in particular when it is destroyed in relation to a major event like an employee?s retirement), no adverse inference is warranted.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and its files

James v. Edwards, No. CL11-225, 2012 WL 9735714 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to compel disclosure of the contents of Plaintiff?s Facebook account and ordered Plaintiff to provide his counsel with his username and password, which his counsel could then utilize to provide access to Plaintiff?s Facebook account to defense counsel; defendant was not allowed to be present during the review of his Facebook account; court imposed date range on relevant materials; court found Plaintiff?s expectation of privacy in his account ?misplaced? in light of Facebook?s privacy disclaimers which ?dispel any notion that information one chooses to share, even if only with one friend, will not be disclosed to anybody else?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Author - eDiscovery Import