Case Summaries – Page 140 – Electronic Discovery Law

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where district court had authorized limited discovery on the issue of standing, and parties disagreed on scope and method of search of data, magistrate judge concluded that the most efficient method was through the appointment of a special master as it would (1) permit a technical expert to review all the data in a timely and effective manner, (2) limit collateral attacks and claims of bias that were likely to result if either party conducted the search, and (3) protect any interests that parties not before the court might have, given plaintiffs’ claims that the data contains private information; magistrate judge recommended appointment of special master and further recommended using Google’s ?Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal? for selection of the special master, development of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Eivaz v. Edwards, No. 12-C-910, 2014 WL 4698652 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After considering the severity of plaintiff’s various discovery violations as well as the prejudice to defendants, and finding plaintiff’s violations of court order were willful and in bad faith, court: (1) granted defense motions for sanctions and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants with prejudice, (2) ordered plaintiff to submit to a continued deposition for up to seven additional hours in the event defendant elected to pursue its counterclaim, and (3) ordered plaintiff and his attorney to pay additional attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by defendant in continuing plaintiff’s deposition and in bringing motion for sanctions

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

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, text messages, financial documents

Kearney v. JPC Equestrian, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-01419, 2014 WL 5493187 (M.D. Penn. Oct. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of email where defendants flatly represented that additional emails did not exist and custodian swore under oath that his email box had been thoroughly searched and there were no further responsive emails

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

E.E.O.C. v. Forge Ind. Staffing, Inc., No. 1:14-mc-00090-SEB-MJD, 2014 WL 6673574 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where former employee filed claim with EEOC alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, and EEOC issued a subpoena to employer staffing agency seeking information to determine how long the staffing agency had required applicants to waive statutorily protected statutes of limitations, court declined to enforce the subpoena, finding that the EEOC’s subpoena exceeded its authority in that the information sought went beyond the issues arising out of former employee?s individual charge; court further determined that the burden imposed on the staffing agency far exceeded the minimal relevance of the evidence sought, given that staffing agency processed 130,000 temporary employee applications during the time period covered by the subpoena, applications were not kept in a central repository or electronically, and compliance would require manual review of each employment application maintained in paper format at each of its ten office locations and would disrupt agency’s day-to-day operations

Nature of Case: Motion for enforcement of administrative subpoena issued to staffing agency relating to investigation of former employee’s claim of sexual harrassment and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of employment application form used by staffing agency between January 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014, including all pages of and revisions to each form

Invivo Therapeutics Corp. v. PixarBio Corp., No. 14-CV_7481-F, 2014 WL 7444828 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff suspected that Defendant was in possession of its confidential and proprietary information but where the ex-employee accused of sharing that information was ?incommunicado, and may well have left the jurisdiction,? court addressed Plaintiff?s request for forensic analysis of ALL of Defendant?s devices to determine the presence of the at-issue information and, ?in an effort to find a reasonable middle ground that serve[d] both parties interests,? ordered Plaintiff to identify the employee of Defendant most likely to have received the information and that all devices of that individual be searched; depending on outcome of search, court indicated that a search of ALL of Defendant?s devices was possible

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete, potential possession of confidential / proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops (contents)

Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Car, Inc., No. 12-cv-2706 (MJD/LIB), 2014 WL 10714011 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing a myriad of motions, court declined to compel Defendant?s production of irrelevant ESI hit upon by agreed-upon search terms reasoning that the rules permit and even encourage relevancy screening ?in an effort to avoid large, largely nonresponsive documents dumps mean to obscure and cloak relevant documents? and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had withheld relevant materials or agreed to the production of all search hits; court declined to compel Defendant?s production of a 30(b)(6)(witness to provide ?discovery on discovery? reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought was ?relevant to – or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to – any claim or defense at issue in the present case? and that the request ?treads dangerously close to encroaching on attorney work product privilege?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI search hits, “discovery on discovery”

Galena St. Fund, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-00587-BNB-KMT, 2014 WL 943115 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Applying FRE 502, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant waived attorney-client privilege by producing 150 privileged documents among production totaling some 208,000 documents consisting of over 2.2 million pages, as defendant established an elaborate protocol for review and production of documents and took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure of privileged documents, demonstrated that the production was inadvertent, and took reasonable steps to rectify the error with reasonable promptness

Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 3:11-cv-1493-ST, 2014 WL 991822 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After non-party produced responsive documents and sought reimbursement of $17,298 from defendant, court found that that hourly rate of $65 to $160 to search and copy documents was ?inherently unreasonable? and could not be justified, and invoices were vague and included entries for internal communications and meetings and time for senior scientists “to stand around the copier and copy documents”; court ruled that the defendant’s prior payment of $5,670 — about one-third of the total charge — was a reasonable amount, and that non-party must either absorb or charge the plaintiff for the remainder of its cost to comply with subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party documents relating to or arising out of specific invoices

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

Celestica Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 312(GBD)(MHD), 2014 WL 1301881 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Mandatory adverse inference instruction was not warranted by former Chairman’s admitted deletion of e-mails after his retirement despite written document preservation instruction from corporate counsel at the outset of litigation, as defendants did not have requisite culpable state of mind and there was insufficient evidence of relevance or prejudice; instead, permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails of defendant Celestica’s former Chairman of the Board

Catagory:Case Summaries