Case Summaries – Page 117 – 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

Humphreys & Partners Architects L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-433, —F.Supp.3d—, 2015 WL 7176010 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to allow recovery for ?electronic discovery vendor fees? because they are ?outside the scope of Section 1920? (28 U.S.C. 1920)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs

Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 14CV208-L (BLM), 2015 WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where the parties agreed to a Joint Discovery Plan requiring production in PDF unless metadata was requested and that in such cases the parties should meet and confer to discuss the format of production in good faith and where Defendant made such a request and sought to confer but was ignored, court ordered Plaintiff to re-produce emails with associated metadata at its own expense

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and metadata

Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telecom, Inc., NO. 14-00169 ACK-RLP, 2015 WL 9274092 (D. Haw. Nov. 25, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Costs generically described as ?discovery services? and broken down as ?Active Hosting,? ?Nearline Hosting,? and ?User Access Fee? were denied where the generic descriptions were insufficient to meet the standard for specificity in the Ninth Circuit and where the descriptions failed to indicate that the fees were incurred for making copies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Taxable costs under 1920(4))

Donley v Donley, 2015 Ark. App. 496 (Ark. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting screen shots from Defendant?s ex-boyfriend?s Facebook account where the appellate court determined that Defendant?s admission that she was ?Meka Rochelle? – the at-issue commenter shown in the screen shots – and admissions that she authored one of the comments and that she was the person depicted in the photos ?sufficiently tie[d] her to the comments and the photos? and that Defendant?s claim that she did not recall making the comments went to weight , not admissibility

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media (Facebook)

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)

Catagory:Case Summaries