Case Summaries – Page 126 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-05634 CRB (DMR), 2014 WL 709555 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2014

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to quash defendant airline’s subpoena to third party Airline Tariff Publication Company (“ATPCO”) which sought production of documents and ESI previously obtained by plaintiffs from ATPCO, search terms and parameters used by plaintiffs, and communications between ATPCO and plaintiffs’ expert, where defendant had chose not to collaborate with plaintiffs and other defendants to identify relevant information, formulate search strings and download the results pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement, and parties’ stipulation regarding experts protected the requested materials from discovery

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Historical airfare pricing data

EEOC v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 2177796 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant utilized third party?s hiring program to allow applicants to apply online, etc. and had limited access to the system?s data (i.e., limitations on the format and content of reports from the system), the court found that the data that could be regularly accessed by the defendant per its contract with the third party was accessible and subject to production and that data housed by the third party and not readily available to the defendant was ?not reasonably accessible . . . because of both undue burden and cost? and ordered that if the EEOC wanted the inaccessible data, it would have to pay for it

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Kronos)

Quintero Cmty. Assoc. v. Hillcrest Bank, No. 04-11-CV-00893-DGK, 2014 WL 1764791 (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants produced ESI that had previously been provided to the FDIC in the course of its investigation but could not provide the passwords to access the information and where the requesting party was told by “several companies” that the documents would be ?nearly impossible? to unencrypt, the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions reasoning that ?a presumption of spoliation only arises when there is evidence of ?intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth?? and that the requesting party had not shown intentional destruction (?QCA has not provided the court with sufficient evidence that Defendants, or their attorneys, placed the passwords on the discs, let alone evidence that these actors did so to intentionally block QCA’s access.?)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed property investment

Electronic Data Involved: Password protected ESI

Rodriguez v. City of New York, No. 114739/10, 2014 WL 2438436, May 29, 2014 (unpublished)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s cross-motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction, finding that it was particularly concerning that defendant Department of Education permitted surveillance video depicting at least some of the activity involved in litigation to be taped over where a police investigation immediately ensued, a Notice of Claim was filed by plaintiff, and the faculty of the school thought to view the video soon after the events occurred, and in the case of one teacher, prior to her deposition

Nature of Case: Student assaulted during school field trip sued for inadequate supervision and negligent hiring

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-CV-2116 (SRN/SER), 2014 WL 1309095 (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court judge overruled plaintiff’s objection to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which found spoliation by defendant in not preserving consul’s mobile phone given that defense counsel knew or should have known that the phone was relevant to the pending litigation, but declined to impose sanctions because there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to plaintiff and plaintiff had failed to pursue opportunities to obtain the information through other methods

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; text messages and other ESI on mobile phone

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Schulman v. Saloon Beverage, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-193, 2014 WL 1516326 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants cooperated with Vermont Department of Liquor Control investigation and with their insurer and supplied records to the apparent satisfaction of both, and produced facially complete 62-page check detail, but failed to preserve the original ESI after filing for bankruptcy and closing business, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse inference instruction since failure to preserve was not deliberate or in bad faith and plaintiffs’ claimed prejudice was based on conjecture; however, because plaintiffs were prejudiced to the extent they could not explore possibility of fabrication or tampering with printout of check details, court would allow evidence of destruction of ESI in its original format to be admitted at trial

Nature of Case: Dram Shop Act and common law claims alleging that defendants’ sale of beer to individual caused head-on collision between individual’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on restaurant’s computers in its original format

Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8-13-cv-01537-ODW(JEMx), 2014 WL 2865786 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court adopted plaintiff’s source-code printing provision in its entirety, rejecting as too restrictive defendant’s proposed limitations that parties may print only that source code ?necessary? to prepare court filings and pleadings, noting that the “reasonably necessary” standard had solid foundation in district?s model protective order, and rejecting as arbitrary defendant?s proposed numerical restrictions: 30-page threshold beyond which the source code printing would be presumed to be excessive, and a total cap on source code printing at the greater of 250 pages or 10 percent of the source code; court also adopted in full plaintiff?s proposed language regarding the use of source code for depositions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lewis v. Bay Inds., Inc., No. 12-C-1204, 2014 WL 4925483 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant had taken “extraordinary step” of handing over to plaintiff’s computer expert a mirror image copy of the company’s email server so that expert could conduct his own search, and none of the mostly irrelevant emails retrieved by expert provided support for plaintiff?s claims, and plaintiff failed to offer convincing evidence that defendant violated an order of the court or intentionally destroyed or concealed relevant evidence, court rejected plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing all of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation and wrongful discharge claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries