Case Summaries – Page 131 – Electronic Discovery Law

Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for appointment of a neutral discovery expert and instead directed parties to meet and confer in person to create a plan to fully resolve their discovery dispute; court issued various directives and deadlines and recommended that plaintiffs send at least one paralegal or other individual with knowledge of or the capability to understand defendants? electronic and paper filing systems, to work with an appointed representative from defendants? side to search through defendants? electronic databases, and that defendants should appoint someone who could fully explain what is in the databases and assist in the search process

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic databases

Quantlab Techs. Ltd. (BGI) v. Godlevsky, No. 4:09-cv-4039, 2014 WL 651944 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After two-day evidentiary hearing, court analyzed conduct of various individuals and inferred bad faith as to each based on particular facts and concluded generally that lost evidence was moderately relevant and loss was moderately prejudicial; without stronger showing of bad faith or more definitive demonstration of relevance and prejudice, court declined to impose litigation-ending sanctions but would give spoliation instruction to be crafted at the same time as jury instructions

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Developer work stations, hard drives, flash drives, source code

In re Uehling, No. 1:14-mc-00009-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 1577459 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel nonparty to answer deposition questions and produce documents, finding that nonparty’s burden of producing copy of external hard drive containing 9.47 gigabytes of information was substantial as the material would need to be reviewed for privilege and for potential redaction and withholding based on confidentiality, privacy and proprietary information purposes, the benefit of the documents to defendant was “minimal,” and defendant had an alternative source for the information sought (i.e., the plaintiff)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive that non-party witness provided to DOJ in the course of the DOJ’s investigation of plaintiff

Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 11 N.E.3d 605 (Mass. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where the facts that would be conveyed by a criminal defendant through his act of decryption of computer files — i.e., his ownership and control of the computers and their contents, knowledge of the act of encryption, and knowledge of the encryption key — are already known to the government and are thus a “foregone conclusion,” compelling the defendant to enter his encryption key does not violate the defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment because the defendant is only telling the government what it already knows; accordingly, court reversed trial judge’s denial of government’s motion to compel decryption and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings

Nature of Case: Criminal case regarding mortgage fraud scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; encryption key

Weitzman v. Maywood, Melrose Park, Broadview Sch. Dist. 89, No. 13 C 1228, 2014 WL 4269074 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference instruction where school district destroyed clearly relevant recordings of school board?s closed session meetings by failing to suspend its usual document destruction policies after having notice of its duty to preserve, and where plaintiff suffered substantial prejudice as a result because she was deprived of perhaps the best evidence concerning school district?s real reasons for her termination; court further denied school district?s pending motion for summary judgment since, in light of the adverse inference against the school district, the material facts as to the district?s reasons for terminating plaintiff were, at a minimum, disputed, and in fact appeared to support plaintiff?s claim of discrimination

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recordings of school board’s closed session meetings during which board members discussed the decision not to renew contracts of plaintiff and others

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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)

Catagory:Case Summaries