Case Summaries – Page 126 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 515 B.R. 874 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that inadvertent production did not waive privilege, court rejected bankruptcy trustee’s argument that party waived privilege because it had not taken any — or perhaps enough — action to have the privileged documents removed from the district court’s electronic docket, noting that measures taken to rectify an inadvertent disclosure is only one of five factors courts consider in determining whether privilege has been waived and other four factors weighed against a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL, 2014 WL 4079507 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In a lengthy decision, the Special Master recounted chronology of “extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI” by defendant and observed: “The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious.” The Special Master concluded that only case dispositive sanctions would fully protect plaintiffs from defendant’s willful discovery failures, and set out various recommendations including specific factual findings as to class certification and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada state wage and hour laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptops, personal mobile phones and BlackBerry devices, BlackBerry server, databases, SMS text messages, etc.

Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc., 18 F.Supp.3d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Observing that, generally, social media content is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, nevertheless, a defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that plaintiff has limited from public view, court denied defendant?s motion to compel, questioning the relevance of the material sought and finding that ?the burden of requiring all of the opt-in Plaintiffs to review all of their postings on potentially multiple social media sites over a period of four years and determine which posts relate to their job, hours worked, or this case, would be an ?extremely onerous and time-consuming task’?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Posts to social media accounts and private messages sent from social media sites

Georgel v. Preece, No. 0:13-CV-57-DLB, 2014 WL 12647776 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice Defendant?s motion to compel production of Plaintiff?s social media records absent a ?factual predicate? upon which to do so, i.e., a presentation of some factual basis that the social media pages would reveal relevant information, but declined to say that Defendant must provide information from Plaintiff?s public pages to satisfy the threshold burden for establishing relevance

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media (Facebook, LinkedIn)

Thompson, I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc., No. 11-12839 (E.D. Mich. Feb 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Noting the limited application of 28 U.S.C. ?1920(4), the court declined to allow recovery of electronic discovery costs for ?forensic consulting and collection,? ?early case assessment,? and ??electronic discovery processing and hosting, data collection, imaging,? and the like? because they were ?not associated with the copying of digital materials?

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs for electronic discovery

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

Lawrence v. Dependable Med. Transp. Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-0417-HRH, 2014 WL 2510623 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs supported their motion for partial summary judgment with plainly privileged e-mails between defendants and their attorneys, which defendants had inadvertently produced, court granted defendants’ motion to strike and ruled that, because plaintiffs had failed to comply with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), they would not be allowed to use the e-mails for any purpose

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged e-mails

Catagory:Case Summaries