Case Summaries – Page 110 – Electronic Discovery Law

Perez v. Metro Dairy Corp., No. 13 CV 2109(RML), 2015 WL 1535296 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiffs in this collective action sought spoliation sanctions for Defendants? failure to produce certain relevant evidence, including payroll records, W-2s, cashier sheets, etc. Defendants objected to the motion on the grounds that ?all of their books, records and computers were seized? pursuant to the court?s order in a different case and that there was no time to make any copies or back ups. Accordingly, the court reasoned that Defendants had not destroyed their records and found that ?[u]nder the specific circumstances of this case ? Defendants did not have an obligation to copy their books and records before complying with the court?s order.? Plaintiffs? motion for sanctions was denied.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records (payroll, W-2s etc.)

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

Cognate Bioservices, Inc. v. Smith, No. WDO-13-1797, 2015 WL 5158732 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiff accused Defendant, its former officer (CEO), of accessing and copying proprietary materials and providing them to another corporation; court found Defendant?s failure to preserve notebooks and the contents of a discarded smartphone to be willful (but not in bad faith) and the failure to issue a litigation hold resulting in the loss of ESI to be grossly negligent; relevance was presumed as to the willfully destroyed materials and was established as to the ESI lost as the result of the litigation hold failure but, after reasoning that the prejudice resulting from the loss of the notebooks was ?clear?-based on their contents-the court indicated that prejudice resulting from the loss of the smartphone and other deletions was ?more complicated? where the ESI may still exist (on a preserved laptop), indicating that if they could not be recovered, the destruction would be prejudicial and warrant sanctions; for willful destruction of notebooks, court recommended that the presiding judge consider an adverse inference; for loss of contents of smartphone and other ESI, court indicated the sanctions were the to be decided by presiding judge and would depend on whether the information could be obtained from another source (i.e., the level of prejudice); no spoliation found as to at-issue laptop where defendant returned the laptop to an employee of the corporate owner, but where that employee was notified to preserve the contents and thus it was unclear if any ESI was lost

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy notebooks, emails/smartphone, ESI

In re State Farm Lloyds, 13?14?00616?CV, 2015 WL 6520998 (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied petition for writ of mandamus, where real party properly requested native and near-native format of production for ESI, including metadata, under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196.4. Court said that relator was not entitled to unilaterally produce ESI in a ?reasonably usable? format and had offered only conclusory testimony that production of ESI in the requested format was unduly burdensome.

Nature of Case: Insurance claim

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Moulton v. Bane, No. 14-cv-265-JD, 2015 WL 7776892 (S.D.N.H. Dec. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant unintentionally lost text messages when his service provider failed to transfer those text messages to his new phone?despite his request to transfer ?everything??and where the texts were later recovered by a forensic analysist, court declined to impose ?punitive sanctions? and ordered Defendant to pay the cost of retrieving the messages

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages (WhatsApp)

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., Inc, No. 3:15-mc-11-K-BN, 2015 WL 12731762 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge concluded that absent evidence of a special relationship or circumstance that imposed a duty to preserve evidence, a third party did not have an obligation to preserve evidence before it was served with a subpoena, even though it was aware of potential litigation against a party with whom it had a close working relationship. Where the non-party was ordered to search for and produce all responsive information but limited its search to its ShareFile and failed to adequately investigate whether responsive information existed on its computers and other devices, the Magistrate judge reasoned that compliance required more than ?simply asking current employees if they have responsive documents? and concluded that third party?s mere survey of current employees (omitting an employee with a difficult personality) as to whether they had responsive emails without an attempt to search or forensically image any devices in its custody failed to satisfy the Discovery Order?s request to make ?all reasonable efforts to search? for potentially relevant documents, violating Rule 45(g).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melissa ?G? v. N. Babylon Union Free School Dist., No. 36209/2006, 2015 WL 1727598 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought production of Plaintiff?s Facebook account (?all postings, status reports, e-mails, photographs and videos posted on her web page to date?) and supported their position with evidence taken from the public content of Plaintiff?s Facebook page, the court acknowledged defendants? obligation to ?establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s Facebook account? that is contradictory to Plaintiff?s alleged claims and that the obligation was met and, reasoning that ?[i]n discovery matters, counsel for the producing party is the judge of relevance in the first instance,? ordered Plaintiff to print and retain all of her Facebook account?s contents and ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to review Plaintiff?s Facebook postings and to produce all that was relevant; the court acknowledged the ?reasonable expectation of privacy attached? to one-on-one messaging and indicated that such messages need not be reviewed ?absent any evidence that such routine communications with family and friends contain information that is material and necessary to the defense.?

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from sexual contact with a teacher

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

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)

Catagory:Case Summaries