Case Summaries – Page 151 – Electronic Discovery Law

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, No. 4:12-CV-1253 CAS, 2013 WL 4028275 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted cross-claim plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-claim defendant to produce computer and cell phone used by decedent by shipping those devices from Jonesboro, Arkansas to St. Louis, Missouri (at cross-claim plaintiff’s expense) for forensic examination because cross-claim defendant’s production of copies of cell phone text messages and a non-forensic copy of the computer hard drive were insufficient to respond to plaintiff’s request for production of the devices themselves, since the copies did not allow for forensic examination of the devices, and because the slight inconvenience to cross-claim defendant in not having access to the cell phone and computer for a period of time was outweighed by the significant additional expense cross-claim plaintiff would incur if she were required to examine the devices in Jonesboro

Nature of Case: Probate matter

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and cell phone used by decedent

Fair Hous. Ctr. of S.W. Mich. V. Hunt, No. 1:09-cv-593, 2013 WL 5719152 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Ruling on plaintiffs? motion for taxation of attorney?s fees and costs, magistrate judge concluded that, although plaintiffs? counsel was entitled to award of fees, fee request was unreasonable in part because the hours devoted to the case were excessive; magistrate judge harshly criticized counsel?s ?unreasonable zeal? and ?single-minded focus? on discovery of ESI: ?The level of effort expended by plaintiffs? counsel to track down the last responsive e-mail . . . was not reasonable in this case. It appeared to this court on more than one occasion that plaintiffs were treating the case as a litigation workshop on discovery of ESI rather than a lawsuit. This case did not involve discovery of patent records contained in Ford Motor Company?s super-computers. Rather, the subject matter of the litigation was an apartment complex in Kalamazoo, run by a marginally competent apartment manager who used a desktop and a laptop. He was often in over his head, especially with regard to record-keeping and computer use. Ninety-nine out of 100 lawyers would never consider making this case the occasion for extensive discovery of electronic evidence. And no client paying his or her own bills would ever authorize such an expensive hunt for marginal evidence.?

Nature of Case: Housing discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

In re Frazer/Exton Dev., L.P., 503 B.R. 620 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied debtors? motion to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement with debtors? largest creditor and plan of reorganization because — notwithstanding that creditor failed to search all potential sources of ESI and failed to produce responsive documents in what court described as ?incompetent and reckless discovery foul-up? that should not have occurred — debtors could not, as a matter of law, obtain the relief they sought under Rule 60 and it would therefore be futile for the court to reopen the record for the purpose of allowing the debtors to file a time-barred Rule 60 motion

Nature of Case: Debtors sought to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement and plan of reorganization

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brookfield Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. AIG Fin. Prods. Corp., No. 09 Civ. 8285(PGG)(FM), 2013 WL 142503 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon receipt of ?dueling letters? concerning the inadvertent production of privileged information (which had been redacted but could be viewed in the metadata), the court noted that such an event emphasized ?the need for counsel for a producing party to keep a watchful eye over their e-discovery vendors,? but found that privilege was not waived because a Rule 502(d) order had been entered. Indeed, the court identified the ?one decretal paragraph? that stated that ?Defendants’ production of any documents in this proceeding shall not, for the purposes of this proceeding or any other proceeding in any other court, constitute a waiver by Defendants of any privilege applicable to those documents, including the attorney-client privilege ….? and concluded that, ?[a]ccordingly, [Defendant] ha[d] the right to claw back the minutes, no matter what the circumstances giving rise to their production were.? (Emphasis added.)

United Nat?l Maint., Inc. v. Sand Diego Convention Ctr. Corp. Inc., No. 07cv2172 AJB-JMA, 2013 WL 30566 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to allow recovery of costs related to the copying and maintenance of emails within an electronic database where the party seeking recovery voluntarily assumed the costs to avoid the need to review voluminous hard copy and where the copies were not obtained ?for use in the case? as evidenced by the petitioner?s reliance on only a very small portion of ESI as exhibits in this case

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to storage of emails, ESI

Thornton v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 12-CV-298-JED-FHM, 2013 WL 1890706 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 11-CV-06357 YGR, 2013 WL 4532927 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs, court allowed recovery of costs related to conversion of documents to TIFF file format which the parties agreed would be the format of production but declined to allow costs for hosting electronic documents

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/ taxable costs

Christou v. Beatport LLC, No. 10-cv-02912-RBJ-KMT, 2013 WL 248058 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a defendant negligently ?lost? his cellular phone and thus the text messages on it despite a duty to preserve, the court ordered that plaintiffs would be permitted to introduce evidence at trial of defendants? failure to preserve and to argue whatever inference they hoped the jury would draw, but defendants would be allowed to present an explanation and argue that no adverse inference should be drawn

Nature of Case: Antitrust and related claims; theft of trade secrets; intentional interference with a prospective business

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Kirgan v. FCA LLC, No. 10-1392, 2013 WL 1500708 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an employee of Defendant first denied he kept a calendar and then testified that he kept a daily electronic calendar but routinely deleted information after a day had passed and that he had continued such deletions even after being told that the entries were sought by the plaintiff in discovery, the court found that Defendant was culpable for the employee?s actions and for its own failure to notify its employees of the duty to preserve and imposed sanctions including an adverse inference, preclusion of the use of certain evidence, and monetary sanctions equal to double the amount incurred for preparation of the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Calendar entries

Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Nektar Therapeutics, No. 1:09-cv-1292 (GLS/CFH0, 2013 WL 2145652 (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for an adverse inference and monetary sanctions related to its allegations of spoliation where the court ?did not agree? that plaintiff was ?grossly negligent? noting that plaintiff ?had in place ? a comprehensive standard document preservation policy, issued both verbal and written litigation hold notices, preserved backup tapes of emails from before commencement, and confirmed that no custodian had deleted any documents related to this matter? and where, the court determined that ?[w]hile there may have been some shortcomings in [plaintiff?s] document retention protocol, it was, at most, negligent? and that the ?discretionary presumption articulated in Residential Funding Corp [306 F.3d 99] d[id] not apply in any event?; court further declared that the spoliation motion failed ?on the ?inability [of Nektar] to adduce evidence suggesting the existence, let alone destruction , of relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries