Case Summaries – Page 116 – Electronic Discovery Law

Davenport v. Charter Comm?cns., LLC, No. 2015 WL 1286372 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of time records in .xls format where Defendant first produced the records in a searchable PDF format, generally found by courts to be ?reasonably usable,? and where the parties? discovery plan contemplated the possible reproduction of certain information upon a showing of good cause in situations where the data or metadata was not adequately captured, but where the court found that Plaintiffs desire to manipulate the documents with greater ease did not constitute good cause; court stated: ?Such difficulties would have been a good reason for Plaintiffs to specify a particular format in their request for production, but are not sufficient ?good cause? to force Defendant to reformat and produce data which it has already provided.?

Nature of Case: FLSA Collective Action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Time Clock Records

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

Charvat v. Valente, No. 12 CV 5746, 2015 WL 4037776 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for loss of former employees? ESI where ESI was deleted pursuant to ?established document retention policy? absent any evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Prohibited Telemarketing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Fed. Of Musicians of the U.S. and Canada v. Skodam Films, LLC, NO. 3:15-mc-122-M-BN, 2015 WL 7771078 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court concluded non-party?s objections to the at-issue subpoena were subject to Rule 34 requirements for objections and, addressing the non-party?s claims of overbreadth and burden, modified the subpoena upon finding that the document requests were ?facially overbroad and pose[d] an undue burden? because they called for the production of ?apparently every document? related to the making of the at-issue movie

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Third party discovery, including ESI

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2015 WL 8543639 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding defendant and counsel in violation of Rule 26(g) for failing to adequately search for discovery (and for their misrepresentations about those efforts), court instructed that ?Rule 26(g) should not be treated like the proverbial stepchild? and that ?Lawyers should not act like ?potted plants? and accept implausible representations from clients . . . .? and also found that sanctions were warranted pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) for defendant?s violation of the court?s order to produce; accordingly the court imposed sanctions and admonished defendant and counsel for their violation of Rule 26(g) and awarded Plaintiff their fees and costs incurred to obtain the discovery

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged plan to terminate franchise agreements

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 965 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to compel Plaintiffs? production of all discovery produced by any party in the case for Defendant?s use where Defendant failed without adequate explanation to maintain all such documents throughout the pendency of litigation due, perhaps, to changes in ownership and legal representation and where Plaintiffs? compilation of such information was work product, but ordered Plaintiff to produce from its database any specifically identified documents at Defendant?s cost

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of Plaintiffs’ discovery database (i.e., the collection of discovery produced by any party during the litigation)

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Catagory:Case Summaries