Case Summaries – Page 146 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dataflow, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-1127 (LEK/DEP), 2014 WL 148685 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2013 WL 6992130) that plaintiff?s motion for adverse inference instruction be granted as sanction for defendant?s grossly negligent failure to preserve internal emails in violation of its own retention policy; court deferred ruling on the language of the jury instruction until the filing of pretrial memoranda so as to consider proposed jury instructions as a whole

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Internal emails

Vasquez v. Cal. Sch. of Culinary Arts, 230 Cal.App.4th 35(2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after successfully opposing Sallie Mae’s motion to quash subpoena, as Sallie Mae lacked substantial justification for its motion given that plaintiffs did not seek to have Sallie Mae extract and compile information from paper files but only asked that Sallie Mae extract ESI from an existing database, plaintiffs never expressed an unwillingness to pay for the reasonable cost of doing so but repeatedly asked for a cost estimate, and Sallie Mae ignored plaintiffs’ requests and did not provide a cost estimate until after its motion to quash had been denied and plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees was being heard

Nature of Case: 1,034 former students asserted claims of fraud, breach of contract and violations of consumer laws

Electronic Data Involved: Loan records maintained by Sallie Mae

Lewis v. Bay Inds., Inc., No. 12-C-1204, 2014 WL 4925483 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant had taken “extraordinary step” of handing over to plaintiff’s computer expert a mirror image copy of the company’s email server so that expert could conduct his own search, and none of the mostly irrelevant emails retrieved by expert provided support for plaintiff?s claims, and plaintiff failed to offer convincing evidence that defendant violated an order of the court or intentionally destroyed or concealed relevant evidence, court rejected plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing all of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation and wrongful discharge claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Curtin v. Blair Bros. Contracting, Inc., No. 2012-1082, 2014 WL 4695980 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 28, 2014) (unreported)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants asserted they received only a “handful” of emails and argued that plaintiffs destroyed or otherwise failed to preserve relevant emails, court denied defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that defendants failed to prove that the subject emails ever actually existed; court further rejected defense argument that missing emails were relevant to their counterclaim, observing that, to the extent the counterclaim sought payment for ?extras? performed by defendants, defendants presumably had their own records to support the counterclaim and did not need to rely on emails exchanged between plaintiffs and their architect, therefore even if spoliation did take place, the defendants were not prejudiced thereby

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and conversion arising from residential construction

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Court Declines to Preclude “Eyes On” Review for Privilege

Nov 25 2014

Good v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-01374, 2014 WL 5486827 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 29, 2014)

In this case, the parties made an effort to “craft an agreement respecting the handling of attorney-client and work product information inadvertently disclosed,” but disagreed regarding the proper procedure for identifying privileged information. Defendants sought to “’encourage the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review, while Plaintiffs propose[d] that the order limit privilege review to what a computer can accomplish, disallowing linear (aka ‘eyes on’) privilege review altogether.’” The court agreed with the defendants and entered an order allowing both computer-assisted and linear review, but invited the plaintiffs to file a second motion should the defendants’ methodologies result in unacceptable delays.

Catagory:Case Summaries