Case Summaries – Page 107 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Smith v. Williams, No. 06-14-00040-CV, 2015 WL 3526089 (Tx. Ct. App. May 29, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Trial court erred by giving a spoliation instruction for Defendant?s failure to produce certain information where an explanation was given for the nonexistence of some records and where there was no evidence that the missing records were lost with the requisite intent to conceal or destroy relevant evidence and the error was harmful; judgment was reversed and case remanded

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from automobile/tractor-trailer collision

Electronic Data Involved: Miscellaneous records

Flanders v. Dzugan, No. 12-1481, 2015 WL 5022734 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions, despite Defendant?s failure to issue a litigation hold, where Plaintiff could not show that evidence was actually lost or destroyed and where, although the court acknowledged that Defendant?s record keeping appeared ?slipshod,? Plaintiff could not show bad faith (?in no case in the Third Circuit cited by Plaintiff, or found by this Court, has a court granted a spoliation inference on nothing more than a failure to institute a litigation hold?)

Nature of Case: [A]lleged constitutional violations arising out of the building permit approval process

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Wilson v. Indiana No. 45A03-1409-CR-317, 2015 WL 1963860 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In a criminal matter, the court said that Twitter messages could be authenticated under Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 901(b) by, for example, ?(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge? and by ?(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like? and these examples were satisfied where a witness testified that she had communicated with the defendant on Twitter via the account in question and testified that the account contained both pictures of the defendant and references to activities that were sufficient to indicate that the posts had been authored by the defendant.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea, No. 11-cv-03417-CMA-MJW, 2015 WL 638198 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiffs brought a ?Motion to Review Clerk?s Taxing of Costs Under F.R.C.P. 54(D)(1).? Specifically, Plaintiffs sought review of the clerk?s determination ?concerning the costs taxed amount of $55,649.98, which accounts for Defendants contracting with a private consulting company, Cyopsis, to retrieve and convert ESI into a retrievable format to produce information requested by Plaintiffs.? The court held that ?[b]ecause Defendants? costs related to the electronically stored information (?ESI?) are expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4), and Plaintiffs were aware that Defendants would have to retain an outside consultant to retrieve and convert the ESI into a retrievable format, Plaintiffs? Motion is denied.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bumpers v. Austal, U.S.A. LLC, No. 08-00155-KD-N, 2015 WL 6870122 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to recover for emails and other ESI compiled by Plaintiff?s expert as ?copying costs? (specifically, Defendant sought ?recovery to produce emails as part of discovery and to obtain already compiled electronic data to support its Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Bradley?s testimony, characterizing them as ?digital copies? necessarily obtained for use in the case?), court reasoned that the costs did not ?relate to a deposition transcript or a true ?digital copy,?? that ?creating an electronic database/compilation or enhanced digital files ?goes well beyond the statutory intent? for taxable digital copies,? and that Defendant had not explained how the data was ?necessarily obtained for use in the case rather than the convenience of counsel? and denied the request

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., No. 14-cv-2634(JFB)(SIL), 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendants? motion to compel Plaintiff?s cell phone records for the purpose of determining her activities during work hours and ordered the production of a sampling of such records from a two year period with an invitation for defendants to renew their application if the sampling provided probative evidence; court denied defendants? motion to compel social media content for the purpose of proving that Plaintiff was engaged in non-work related activities while she claimed to be working where defendants offered little more than their hope that they would find something of relevance but ordered production of a sampling of content from Plaintiff?s Facebook account for the purpose of determining her emotional state, limited to the production of content referencing claimed emotional distress and any related treatment and any alternative sources for the alleged distress

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (FLSA, NYLL)

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone records, Social media (Facebook)

United States v. Shah, No. 5:13-CR-328-FL, 2015 WL 3605077 (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to find that contents of email and chats from gmail account could be authenticated as Google?s business records pursuant to ER 902(11) where the contents of the emails were automatically copied to and maintained upon Google?s servers finding that the ?knowledge? requirement was not satisfied and reasoning: ?Neither SHAHNN28@GMAIL.COM, nor any other originating source whose statements appear in the records produced by Google were under a ?business duty? to convey accurate information in their correspondence. Because the proffered ?finished product? is not the collective effort of ?business insiders,? who share a duty to ensure the accuracy of their statements, the court cannot allow those statements to be authenticated on the theory that they are Google?s self-proving business records under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11).?

Nature of Case: Intentional damage to a protected computer

Electronic Data Involved: Gmail emails and chats

Catagory:Case Summaries