Case Summaries – Page 119 – Electronic Discovery Law

DeCastro v. Kavadia, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 4619914 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For defendant?s intentional deletion of emails using cleaning software and misrepresentations intended to cover up the same as well as defendant?s failure to produce documents over which he was found to maintain control and misrepresentations related to the same, the magistrate judge recommended a permissive adverse inference and that defendant and counsel, who ?exacerbated? the effects of defendant?s misconduct through incomplete or misleading representations to the court, be jointly and severally liable for plaintiff?s attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions; district court rejected objections to the recommendations and adopted them in full

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. 4:10-CV-03724-CW (LB), 2015 WL 5187505 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Reasoning that ?[t]he inquiry about what electronic processes are taxable turns on whether they are part of making copies ?necessarily obtained for use in the case? or instead are solely for the convenience of counsel? the court indicated that it would award costs for load file preparation, but not for processing data

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Johnson v. BAE Sys., Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, No. 11-cv-02172 (RLW), 2015 WL 3397036 (D.D.C. May 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs bad discovery behaviors included hiring a computer technician to work on her computer before producing it for inspection, including using C Cleaner to delete files; deleting several .pst files; and producing a seemingly incomplete set of documents from Facebook, the court called it ?an exceedingly close case? but, because of the lack of meaningful prejudice, declined to impose terminating sanctions and ordered an adverse inference and other evidentiary sanctions and that Defendants were entitled to recoup their fees related to the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged sexual harassment on the job

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, Facebook (social network)

Commonwealth v. Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d 440 (Mass. July 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where murder victim sent text message to son stating that defendant was threatening to kill her and that she was scared and 6 minutes later called 911 to report that defendant was stabbing her, court did not err in allowing text message to son into evidence under the ?spontaneous utterance? exception to the hearsay rule

Nature of Case: Murder

Electronic Data Involved: Text message

Ralser v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 13-2799, 2015 WL 5016351 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI

Wilson v. Indiana No. 45A03-1409-CR-317, 2015 WL 1963860 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In a criminal matter, the court said that Twitter messages could be authenticated under Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 901(b) by, for example, ?(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge? and by ?(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like? and these examples were satisfied where a witness testified that she had communicated with the defendant on Twitter via the account in question and testified that the account contained both pictures of the defendant and references to activities that were sufficient to indicate that the posts had been authored by the defendant.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Hausman v. Holland Amer. Line – USA, No. 13cv00937 BJR, 2016 WL 11234152

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to shift the costs of ?preparing emails for production? (estimated to be $16,325), the court reasoned that Plaintiff assumed the responsibility for producing relevant documents by initiating the litigation, that cost shifting is ?appropriate ?only when electronic data is relatively inaccessible?? (citing Zubulake v. Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)), that ?[d]ata may be described as ?inaccessible? due to an undue cost or burden associated with accessing the data,? and concluded that the ?emails in this case [were] readily available? and that the high costs of production were not associated with ?accessing or delivering the emails? but rather with counsel?s review for privilege which was more like attorney?s fees and thus the court denied the motion

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Catagory:Case Summaries