Case Summaries – Page 117 – Electronic Discovery Law

Henry v. Abbott Labs., No. 2:12-cv-841, 2015 WL 5729344 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Despite duty to preserve personnel records created by regulation (29 CFR ? 1602.14), court found no ?regulatory violation? in the destruction of documents subject to preservation until a ?final disposition? of the action where documents were destroyed following Plaintiff?s failure to appeal the dismissal of her case; court also found that even if Defendant had an ongoing duty to preserve (because the case was eventually reinstated upon Plaintiff?s motion for relief from the dismissal), there was no evidence of requisite culpability where Defendant reasonably believed (as did the court) that the case had been ?finally adjudicated;? the court also questioned the relevance of the at-issue documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: personnel evaluations, surveys related to promotion

F & J Samame, Inc. v. Arco Iris Ice Cream, SA?13?CV?365?XR, 2015 WL 4068575 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for attorneys? fees, where defendant had used software to wipe a PC and a laptop, deleting and overwriting more than 62,000 files, and violated a court order, and stalled the discovery process. Court denied in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, however, instead granting leave for new depositions, saying that while its order ?does not address the loss of evidence that may establish willful infringement,? the alleged infringing materials ?are available for the jury to assess whether infringement has incurred or not.?

Nature of Case: Trade dress and Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and ESI on hard drive

Knauf Insulation, LLC v. Johns Manville Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 7089725 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendants identified 38 potential email custodians who may possess relevant ESI but proposed to load the emails of only ten custodians to save money and ?facilitate the predictive coding process? and where Plaintiff indicated that Defendant refused to informally disclose information sufficient to evaluate the importance of each custodian, the court briefly opined re: e-Discovery and the lack of any guarantee that all relevant documents will be found and then, reasoning that it had no evidence with which to weigh the likelihood that the 28 ?tangential custodians? would have relevant information but that in ?a high value? case the burden of $18,000 (the amount Defendant proposed to save) did not outweigh the potential benefit to Plaintiff of receiving the emails, declined Defendants? request to limit custodians; regarding cost-shifting, the court ordered that if the search of the 28 additional custodians returned fewer than 500 responsive documents Plaintiff would bear the cost of loading the materials but that if more than 500 were identified, Defendant would bear the costs

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Hespe v. City of Chicago, No. 13 C 7998, 2016 WL 7240754 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where a magistrate judge found the requested inspection of Plaintiff?s devices was not proportional to the needs of the case ?especially? in light of Plaintiff?s privacy and confidentiality interests despite the production of thousands of text messages by Plaintiffs? mother (which Plaintiff confirmed she had sent to her for safekeeping) and alleged inconsistent testimony from the Plaintiff, the District Court Judge overruling Defendants? objections acknowledged the need for caution in allowing such inspections (including by citing the 2006 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34) absent evidence of a responding party?s failure as to its discovery obligations or a ?substantiated connection? between the at-issue device and the claims of the case and concluded that neither had been established in the present case

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, text messages

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

S.E.C. v. Blackburn, No. 15-2451-CJB-SS, 2015 WL 10911438 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: No waiver of privilege resulting from inadvertent production (as a result of legal assistant?s accidental attachment of the wrong email folder when preparing initial disclosures) where steps to prevent disclosure were reasonable, including custodian?s specific identification of privileged material and trial attorney?s review of all non-privileged docs to be produced and where trial attorney immediately addressed inadvertent disclosure upon her discovery of it and return to her office

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV214-075, 2015 WL 171236 (S.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions after Defendant stated in deposition they took accident scene photographs, but did not provide the photographs and stated all accident photographs had been provided. Plaintiff claimed Defendant?s sole possession was circumstantial evidence Defendant acted affirmatively in destroying the photographs. However, Court would not infer bad faith because it was possible ?the photographs were lost or destroyed haphazardly,? and concluded circumstantial evidence cannot prove bad faith ?without any evidence that the loss or destruction of the photographs was, or could only be, due to a deliberate, intentional act of Defendant or its agent.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs of slip and fall scene

Farley v. Callais & Sons LLC, No. 14-2550, 2015 WL 4730729 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of log in information and all Facebook information posted since the underlying accident but granted the motion in part and compelled the production of certain categories of information to be identified by a review of Plaintiff?s account by his counsel; courts also ordered submission of sworn declaration that all such information was produced and that counsel ensured preservation of the Facebook materials lest a dispute arise in future

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Appler v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC, NO. 3:14-cv-166-RLY-WGH, 2015 WL 5793236 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 1, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Despite ?attenuated? arguments in favor of production, court found that social media content of Plaintiff?s supervisor and Defendant?s human resources representative could contain relevant information and, pursuant to a pre-existing protective order restricting disbursement of discoverable information, concluded that Plaintiff?s counsel could review the individuals’ social networking sites (SNS) content for relevant remarks; court ordered hearing to discuss procedures for searching and limiting SNS content, the costs of such a search, who should conduct the search, etc.

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Social media (Facebook, MySpace)

H.M. Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12cv28840-BAS-MDD, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For multiple discovery violations by Defendant and counsel, including improper certification of discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(g), failure to issue a litigation hold or appropriately supervise discovery, and intentional deletion of responsive materials and delayed production, the court imposed multiple discovery sanctions, including attorneys? fees and costs, issue sanctions, and an adverse inference; notably, the court indicated sanctions would have been imposed under New Rule 37(e), because the court found that the at-issue ESI was lost with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the information?s use in the litigation; Update: Compensatory sanctions vacated by District Court upon determination that parties? settlement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions (—F.Supp.3d—, 2016 WL 1267385 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016))

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, trade libel, unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries