Case Summaries – Page 155 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s iphone where there was no dispute that the at-issue phone was not the phone that received the at-issue text message and where Plaintiff?s expert indicated that the relevant iphone had been backed up on plaintiff?s personal computer; court denied motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s personal computer where Defendant failed to demonstrate that the information sought was not reasonably accessible through other sources (e.g., the co-defendant that allegedly sent the at-issue text message), where plaintiff had offered to search for whatever information defendant sought, where plaintiff had already provided considerable data, and where Defendant?s request was essentially a fishing expedition; court reasoned that ?absent a showing of misconduct? raising questions regarding the completeness of Plaintiff?s expert?s search, no inspection by Defendant was warranted and ordered the parties to cooperate to create a protocol for plaintiff?s expert to use

Electronic Data Involved: iphone, contents of personal computer, text-message

RPM Pizza LLC v. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co., No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR, 2013 WL 6054551 (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide ESI in the format requested, reasoning that defendant waived its objection by not timely asserting it, and also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had not shown why it was necessary for defendant to produce in the requested form where, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2)(E), a requesting party is not required to make such a justification

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, Nos. 2:12-cv-510, 2:12-cv-929, 2013 WL 1282384 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection and imaging of certain of defendant?s computers/servers/devices in case involving accusations of misappropriation of confidential information by plaintiff?s former employees for the benefit of defendant but also granted defendant a protective order limiting disclosure for ?attorneys? eyes only?

Nature of Case: Missapropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litig., Nos. 09 C 7666, 11 C 1468, 2013 WL 791432 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s document and preservation efforts were inadequate and briefed ?at long length several document production errors, general complications and litigation hold mishandling,? including incorrect volume estimates of documents produced by search terms, date discrepancies in metadata, and corrupt emails (among others) the court noted that Plaintiffs had not obtained a court order against Defendant or attempted to show that it acted in bad faith and found that the allegations did not rise to a level justifying appointment of an outside third party ediscovery auditor, but granted Plaintiffs? motion for depositions of certain document custodians regarding document production issues; court denied motion to require Defendant to recover all documents deleted by certain custodians, including from backup tapes, where the court found that Defendant ?carried out its duty to preserve documents in a manner commensurate with the likely scope and role of [Defendant?s] participation in future litigation? and noted that reasonable efforts do not require the preservation of ?every single scrap of paper?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shawback v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 3:11-cv-00243 JWS, 2013 WL 3306078 (D. Alaska July 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff?s failure to preserve communications and other evidence related to her job search (related to her mitigation of damages) and where Plaintiff?s counsel explained that many of the job-seeking activities were undertaken electronically and did not result in emails to be preserved, the court reasoned that Plaintiff?s degree of fault with respect to the online services was ?not large,? that allowing her to testify that she ?periodically? reviewed job lists and ?sometimes? clicked on the links was not ?seriously prejudicial,? and that the sanctions sought were disproportional and thus ordered that Plaintiff could not testify regarding specific job inquiries absent documentation of that inquiry and that she could not testify that she applied for one-hundred or more jobs, but indicated that Plaintiff would be allowed to testify that she looked at jobs periodically and sometimes clicked on the links and to testify regarding job applications for which she provided documentation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Data related to online job searching

Reinsdorf v. Academy Ltd., No. 3:13-0269, 2013 WL 3475183 (M.D. Tenn. July 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a preservation order based primarily on Defendant?s refusal to share the details of its preservation efforts and based on speculation that Defendant had not preserved certain evidence (based on its use of a blank, rather than ?actual? purchase order as an exhibit to a motion), the court found that plaintiff offered only speculation and denied the motion; court also commented, based on the detailed nature of Plaintiff?s proposed order, that ?Plaintiff essentially wants the Court to grant a discovery request that has not been made?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Whiteamire Clinic, P.A., Inc. v. Quill Corp., No. 12 C 5490, 2013 WL 5348377 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes

In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2342, 2013 WL 8445354 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon the Plaintiffs? Steering Committee?s motion to compel Pfizer to produce a log identifying documents withheld from production as non-responsive or irrelevant, particularly email attachments, the court noted the prior comprehensive treatment of the question of whether attachments must be produced in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) and concluded in this case that requiring defendant to log or produce with redactions those documents previously withheld was not warranted absent a showing of a ?systematic failure in Pfizer?s document review? or that the failures were ?on a large scale? or the product of an ?unjustified decision? but reasoned that the burden of requiring a log or other justification for the witholdings going forward would not carry as high a burden and ordered the parties to confer to determine how best to track that information going forward

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Attachments to ESI, particularly email

Skepnek v. Roper & Twardowsky, No. 11-41-2-KHV, 2013 WL 5499801 (D. Kan. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid running the searches proposed by plaintiff based on irrelevance, overbreadth and undue burden, the court found that defendant had failed to meet the burden to show cause for entry of a protective order and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Mayor of Baltimore v. Unisys Corp., No. JKB 12-614, 2013 WL 4833841 (D. Md. Sep. 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied city’s motion for spoliation sanctions, without prejudice, in light of the evidence offered by Unisys that an unadulterated copy of the pre-litigation version of the software still existed; court ordered parties to meet and confer in person to address the issues the city had encountered with the software and reconstructng the testing environment, attempt to resolve defendant’s work product and attorney client privilege claims, and prepare a joint report to the court summarizing the meet and confer

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of express warranties, and intentional misrepresentation claims relating to the development of a tax software system

Electronic Data Involved: Pre-litigation version of the tax software, interim software files, source code

Catagory:Case Summaries