Case Summaries – Page 126 – Electronic Discovery Law

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

AKH Co., Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG, 2014 WL 2760860 (D. Kan. June 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that documents be produced in native format but defendant produced documents in both hard copy format and in a few very large PDF files, court found that defendant had adequately explained why the documents were not produced in their native format (proprietary nature of certain software used by defendant, defendant’s right to withhold privileged information, need to limit production of irrelevant information regarding unrelated policyholders, the added costs of re-producing information already submitted to plaintiff in converted PDF format), and ruled that, absent a need for metadata as to a particular document, it would not require defendant to re-produce the information

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and settlement of trademark dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ogden v. All-State Career School, No. 2:13cv406, 2014 WL 1646934 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court observed that ordering plaintiff to permit access to or produce complete copies of his social networking accounts would permit defendant to cast too wide a net and sanction an inquiry into scores of quasi-personal information that would be irrelevant and non-discoverable, and stated: ?Defendant is no more entitled to such unfettered access to plaintiff’s personal email and social networking communications than it is to rummage through the desk drawers and closets in plaintiff’s home”; court ruled that defendant was only entitled to limited discovery of plaintiff’s communications, and set out particular steps that plaintiff must take to comply with defendant?s requests

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and disparate treatment based on reverse gender discrimination and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic communications made or affirmatively acknowledged by plaintiff on any social networking website (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, MySpace) during the period of alleged harassment

Wis. Resources Protection Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., No. 11-cv-45-bbc, 2014 WL 3810884 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiffs? objection to clerk?s ruling on defendant?s bill of costs to the extent it awarded defendant taxable costs associated with retrieving computer information, noting that defendant sought reimbursement of only the costs incurred in the extraction endeavor — not for help in reviewing the documents; finding the request reasonable, the court observed: “Plaintiffs asked Defendant for 20 years of information from defendant?s mine site in Ladysmith, Wisconsin. Given the nature of the information storage over this period of time, it was reasonable, if not essential, for defendant to employ an expert third-party forensic expert to extract the information.?

Nature of Case: Environmental damage to the Flambeau River

Electronic Data Involved: 20 years of information

Gloucester Twp. Hous. Auth. V. Franklin Square Assocs., No. 12-0953 (RMB/AMD), 2014 WL 3974168 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court evaluated five factors to determine that defendant’s inadvertent disclosure waived the attorney-client privilege, where defendant did not describe the precautions taken, if any, to prevent the disclosure of privileged information, but instead relied on the purportedly voluminous nature of the production, the disputed letters set forth communications between attorney and client concerning clearly privileged, substantive information relating to the litigation, the letters were produced in the litigation on two separate occasions, and defense counsel waited over three months after the letters’ production before attempting to rectify the disclosures and only discovered the inadvertent disclosure while preparing for a deposition

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged letters

Siggers v. Campbell, No. 07-12495, 2014 WL 4978648 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding that litigation hold was not put into place until more than four years after complaint was filed, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that defendant deleted any documents or evidence, or acted with an intent to conceal or destroy evidence, there was no evidence that defendant routinely exchanged email correspondence about plaintiff with others, and the vigorous work of plaintiff?s appointed counsel led to only one responsive email being produced; plaintiff would be allowed to question defendant at trial about her failure to timely impose a litigation hold and about other matters related to plaintiff?s assertion that she must have had relevant email communications that no longer exist

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner civil rights claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

People v. Chabcery, No. ST-14-CR-0000073, 2014 WL 5396166 (V.I. Super. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating that the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that the originality of ESI is determined by whether the printout accurately reflects the information that it purports to show, not the location where the information is stored, court found that printout of message log retrieved from an electronic memory card constituted an original writing under FRE 1002, and denied criminal defendant’s motion in limine to exclude such evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal case on charges of rape and unlawful conduct

Electronic Data Involved: Information stored on memory card

Stinson v. City of New York, no. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2014 WL 5090031 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced two privileged documents along with large volume of ESI, and 14 days later notified plaintiffs of such inadvertent production, and six days after that filed motion for order to show cause to compel plaintiffs to immediately return the privileged documents, court rejected plaintiffs? contention that they should be allowed to retain and review a copy of the privileged documents for the purpose of opposing the privilege claim and ordered plaintiffs to return all copies of the privileged documents to defendants; plaintiffs would be permitted to rely on any material learned prior to defendants? letter in challenging defendants? assertion of privilege

Nature of Case: Section 1983 class action against city, police department commissioner, and police officers, alleging defendants had a policy of issuing unconstitutional summonses in violation of First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spears v. First Am. eAppraiseit, No. 5-08-CV-00868-RMW, 2014 WL 6901808 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Non-party JPMorgan Chase Bank moved for an order compelling Plaintiffs to reimburse Chase over $450,000 in costs for producing over 334,000 pages of documents. Chase sought reimbursement under FRCP 45(d)(2)(b)(ii); Plaintiffs argued Chase could not recover costs unless the production resulted from a court order. The Court found that a court order is not required to shift costs and that costs may be shifted under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) if the requesting party is on notice that the non-party will seek reimbursement of costs. The Court ultimately denied Chase?s motion, stating ?it would be unfair?to reimburse Chase for costs?where Chase failed to inform plaintiffs it would later seek reimbursement??

Nature of Case: RESPA class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries