Case Summaries – Page 108 – Electronic Discovery Law

Clientron Corp. Devon IT, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, No. 13-5634, 2015 WL 5093084 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery violations, including failure to adequately search for responsive evidence, failure to designate a 30(b)(6) representative for deposition, and admitted deletion of emails despite a duty to preserve, the court found that sanctions were warranted and imposed serious sanctions, including monetary sanctions, exclusion of evidence, and ?enforcing the judgement of the Taiwanese court? against Defendant, where Defendant?s litigation misbehavior may have rendered Plaintiff unable to prove its contractual claim in court

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Tyler v. City of San Diego, No. 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB, 2015 WL 1955049 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel documents where Defendant rejected Plaintiffs? proposed search terms and protocols, but did not use search terms and protocols it deemed reasonable to produce those documents that were readily accessible and admittedly relevant. Court also refused to limit the locations Defendant was required to search for relevant documents saying, ?The City is not excused from conducting a reasonable search for all non-privileged responsive documents in City?s custody and control, regardless of location.?

Nature of Case: Sexual Harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Database

SFP Works LLC v. Buffalo Armory LLC, No. 14-13575, 2015 WL 7294580 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged it could not access the data produced by defendant?even with the use of specialized software provided by Defendant and the assistance of a third party vendor?and refused the options provided by defendant insisting instead that defendant must re-load the date to ensure it was not corrupted, the court noted Plaintiff?s failure to timely seek a solution to the discovery problems or to mitigate the difficulties by pursuing any of the offered remedial measures and denied the motion to compel access to the at-issue information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (“operational data”)

Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 156310 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the elements of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), court concluded that whether production was ?inadvertent? should be determined by asking whether the party intended to produce the document or whether it was a mistake rather than looking at court-identified factors to determine whether the ??inadvertent? element? was satisfied and found: 1) that the at-issue emails were produced by mistake, and thus inadvertently, 2) that reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure were taken where counsel identified the documents as privileged after personally inspecting them but where they were nonetheless produced inadvertently among the other 1,000 pages produced in response to the relevant request, and 3) that prompt steps were taken to prevent the error where counsel informed opposing counsel of the inadvertent production on the same day he discovered it; thus, the inadvertent production did not result in waiver

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defective roofing adhesive

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Good v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-1374, 2015 WL 1757978 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to Plaintiffs? requests for production on grounds of relevance, but nevertheless produced the information in the format in which it was ordinarily maintained (Microsoft SQL Server format) and also provided Plaintiffs with the means to access the data in a ?parallel environment? and then later in an excel format for a limited period of time, indicating that the earlier periods of time were not reasonably accessible, and where Plaintiffs ultimately ?did not disagree? that the information was not as useful as they had thought, the court found the rest of the requested information (from the earlier time periods) was not reasonably accessible and that the burden of production outweighed its likely benefit and denied the motion to compel unless good cause could be shown

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ?SCADA? data from a Microsoft SQL Server format

Junious Vital v. Nat?l Oilwell Varco, No. H-12-1357, 2015 WL 40417 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to award of costs for ?monthly expenses associated with maintaining a database of electronically stored information used to locate, retrieve, and store the plaintiffs? emails.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Superior Performers Inc. v. Meaike, No. 1:13CV1149, 2015 WL 471429 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s agent deleted an original voicemail from his phone by way of a factory reset but had produced a copy and also claimed to have transferred the voicemail to his new phone and where Defendants sought sanctions and argued that the deletion would prevent them from showing the voicemail was fabricated, as they suspected, the court declined to impose sanctions for the alleged fabrication, despite evidence the presentation of evidence that could lead to that conclusion, but did order that Plaintiff be prevented from using the voicemail at trial as a sanction for spoliation, reasoning that although the voicemail was not on one of Plaintiff?s phones (but rather on its agent?s), it ?likely? had a duty to preserve the evidence and that Plaintiff did not attempt to provide access to the phone or provide notice of the voicemail?s possible destruction

Nature of Case: Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail

HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, NO. A754/2014, 2015 WL 2403099 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For one defendant?s repeated use of a cleaning software (?Disk Utility? and its ?Secure Erase Free Space? function) to delete files and loss of a relevant hard drive without an adequate explanation and for another defendant?s loss of relevant ESI, including her intentional deletion of information from the desktop registry and her disposal of her cell phone (which she notably was unaware had been automatically backed up each time it was connected to her computer), ongoing deletion of text messages (on her new phone), and misrepresentations about when the old phone was discarded, the court found that a mandatory adverse inference was warranted and rejected Defendants? argument that the court should decline to employ the adverse inference at the preliminary injunction state, reasoning that the objective of promoting fairness was best served by ?employing an adverse inference at all relevant states of the litigation?; court also ordered defendants to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys fees without seeking reimbursement from their new employer and indicated its intention to forward its decision to the NY Bar in light of one defendant?s status as an attorney

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of “post-employment covenants”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive, text messages (iphone)

Ralser v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 13-2799, 2015 WL 5016351 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI

Boxer F2 L.P. v. Flamingo West, Ltd. No. 14?cv?00317?PAB?MJW, 2015 WL 2106101 (D. Colo. May 04, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court said it appreciated defendants? decision to ultimately comply with its discovery obligations by producing 16,600 pages of accounting records the day after the motions hearing on the matter, but said that the untimely disclosure did not have any bearing on the fact that defendants did not allow plaintiffs access to all of their accounting records and altered those records to which they did allow access to conceal material information without valid justification. Finding that defendants acted in bad faith for having failed to comply with three court orders compelling discovery and having done so knowingly and intentionally, court granted motion for sanctions, including adverse inferences and cost and fees.

Nature of Case: Lease

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting records

Catagory:Case Summaries