Case Summaries – Page 117 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB, 2015 WL 4635729 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Special Master declined to recommend spoliation sanctions but recommended $1,855,255.09 in monetary sanctions ?to compensate Plaintiffs for the additional time and expenses that they have incurred as a result of Delta?s failure to comply with discovery obligations,? including Defendant?s delayed identification and production of relevant evidence (including backup tapes and other ESI), the District Court agreed that monetary sanctions were appropriate but found that a higher amount was warranted and thus increased the monetary sanctions to $2,718,795.05

Nature of Case: Antitrust (Bag fees)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Grove City Veterinary Serv. LLC v. Charter Practices Int?l, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2015 WL 4937393 (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff had a ?continuing business relationship? with Defendant despite the pending litigation and Defendant hosted Plaintiff?s emails on its servers, court rejected Plaintiff?s claim that Defendant?s changes to the email-archiving system resulted in a loss of Plaintiff?s emails where Plaintiff could provide no evidence of Defendant?s alleged access to Plaintiff?s emails and where Defendant credibly posited that Plaintiff had accidentally ?dragged and dropped? the missing email folders into the ?Notes? tab of the archived mailbox (where the emails were ultimately located); court also declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s initial refusal to assist Plaintiff to locate the emails (that it had requested) where it had no duty to do so, and where despite that lack of duty, it nonetheless ultimately made a good faith, but unsuccessful, search effort; Defendant?s litigation hold on Plaintiff?s email account to retain copies of messages that anyone attempted to delete did not warrant sanctions, despite Plaintiff?s claim that the hold was ?worse than spoliation? because ?unlike evidence unlawfully destroyed by a party, evidence placed in a litigation hold is still available to the party implementing the litigation hold?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Spotted Horse v. BNSF Ry. Co., 350 P.3d 52 (Mont. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where district court abused its discretion when it declined to impose a meaningful sanction on railroad for allowing destruction of accident scene video footage during its pre-litigation investigation, the Court remanded for a new trial and ordered the district court to fashion a sanction that would satisfy the remedial and deterrent goals of sanctions for the spoliation of evidence, but the Court also said that district court?s refusal to grant injured machinist?s request for a default judgment as an evidentiary sanction for spoliation was not an abuse of discretion because it was not possible to know if the destruction was intentional or inadvertent

Nature of Case: Workplace injury

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video surveillance recording

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

Catagory:Case Summaries