Case Summaries – Page 128 – Electronic Discovery Law

Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:13-cv-00582-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 5529895 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel, court rejected defendant’s assertion of irrelevance and its conclusory assertions of burdensomeness, finding that defendant had failed to “show with specificity” that plaintiff’s requests were overly burdensome and noting that defendant’s contentions would have more force if defendant had provided an estimate of the cost or hours involved in searching, compiling, and producing the requested information; addressing the discovery of ESI ?more directly,? court ordered defendant to file a disclosure stating the names of all custodians whose ESI was searched, the scope of the ESI searched, date ranges searched for each custodian and specific search terms used, and also provide such information for any additional custodians whose ESI would be searched in light the withdrawal of defendant?s objections; plaintiff was then required, within seven days, to propose a list of additional custodians and scope of ESI, date ranges and specific search terms for such custodians, following which the parties should endeavor to reach agreement regarding the scope of additional e-discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ), 2014 WL 5494906 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge evaluated defendants’ bills of taxable costs and plaintiff’s objections thereto, and allowed and disallowed various e-discovery related costs; magistrate judge observed that courts within the Northern District of California have awarded costs under 28 USC s. 1920(4) for such things as scanning paper documents, electronic scanning and conversion to PDF, TIFF conversion, OCR and OCR conversion, image endorsement/Bates stamping, slip sheet preparation, blow-back scanning paper documents, and media hardware used for production; she further awarded costs related to the loading and processing of data, designed to make the data usable, actual data production costs, and migration and restoration costs designed to move the data — already stored in another database — into another database for use in the litigation; magistrate judge further ruled that e-discovery hosting costs and associated fees and FedEx costs associated with e-discovery costs were not compensable

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Culp v. Alabama, CR-13-1039, 2014 WL 6608543 (Ala. Crim. App Nov.21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In his appeal of a domestic violence conviction, Culp claimed that emails between himself and the victim were improperly admitted into evidence and were never properly authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4), Ala. R. Evid.. Alabama?s Rule 901(b)(4), which is identical to the federal version, provides that evidence can be authenticated by ?[d]istinctive characteristics and the like,? including ?[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.? The court ruled that the emails were properly authenticated because each email contained Culp?s photograph, a screen name that he used, and many of the emails concluded with Culp?s initials. Additionally, the emails contained drug references that were uniquely used by Culp and the victim.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Email

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Cusato v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. B242696, 2014 WL 1349493 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2014) (unpublished)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Terminating sanctions dismissing cross-complaint deemed proper where cross-complainants used “File Shredder” to delete gigabytes of data from their computers in violation of orders requiring cross-complainants to preserve computer data and to turn over their computers to computer expert; however, trial court instructed to reconsider monetary sanctions imposed against cross-complainants given that computer expert hired by plaintiff began its forensic examination of the computer media months before it was authorized to do so, in violation of the court’s orders

Nature of Case: LLC members asserted claims and cross-claims after failed business venture

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of individual cross-claimants

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317-EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 580290 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Litigation was reasonably foreseeable so as to trigger a duty to preserve evidence when plaintiff first acquired patents with an eye toward litigation, although company was analyzing defendant’s technology and openly discussing litigation months earlier; however, because plaintiff waited 11 days after filing suit to implement a legal hold and there was evidence that potentially relevant emails were deleted, court imposed monetary sanctions instead of the more severe sanctions requested given absence of substantial prejudice to defendant and fact that plaintiff’s conscious disregard of its duty to preserve was motivated by cost-saving

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails

Volcan Group Inc. v. Omnipoint Commc?ns, Inc., 552 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in dismissal of Plaintiff?s breach of contract action where Plaintiff failed to preserve (i.e., spoliated) relevant materials and where the record also suggested that certain evidence had been falsified

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni, No. 2:13-cv-1770 LLK AC, 2014 WL 172336 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Motion for spoliation sanctions denied without prejudice where plaintiff argued that individual defendants violated their duty to preserve by continuing to use their personal electronic devices after receiving notice of the action and not “quarantining” the devices pending forensic imaging, as plaintiff did not make a specific showing that spoliation had, in fact, occurred; testimony of plaintiff’s forensic experts was mere speculation as neither expert identified any actual loss of data nor provided any forensic analysis of the personal electronic devices at issue

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on individual defendants’ personal electronic devices

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences, No. SA-11-CV-163-XR, 2014 WL 1787813 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order barring defendants from obtaining CEO’s e-mails during discovery, finding that CEO had potentially relevant information that defendants might not be able to obtain from other custodians and that CEO’s high level role did not make discovery of his e-mails any more or less burdensome than producing e-mails of other executives

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail of CEO who joined plaintiff after lawsuit was filed

Catagory:Case Summaries