Case Summaries – Page 160 – Electronic Discovery Law

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

United States v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 09-3073, 2013 WL 1749930 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions for several discovery violations: 1) for failing to provide Plaintiffs with information regarding its process for scrubbing calling lists against the do not call list and for providing a deponent with insufficient knowledge of the issue, court characterized defendant?s behavior as ?obstructive, contumacious, and willful? and precluded the use of evidence about the creation and scrubbing of telemarketing campaign lists; 2) for failing to preserve ESI related to a particular calling campaign despite a duty to preserve, court issue finding of fact that the campaign was conducted for commercial purposes; 3) for obstructive behavior related to whether it shared lead lists to retailers, including inaccurate statements and for failing to preserve information related to the same, court imposed adverse inference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. PPI Tech. Servs., L.P., No. 11-2773, 2013 WL 4508128 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to requests for social media content reasoning that although such content was potentially discoverable, Defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the material sought was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? and went on to reason that: ?Simply placing their mental and physical conditions at issue is not sufficient to allow PPI to rummage through Johnson’s or Croke’s social media sites. Almost every plaintiff places his or her mental or physical condition at issue, and this Court is reticent to create a bright-line rule that such conditions allow defendants unfettered access to a plaintiff’s social networking sites that he or she has limited from public view.?

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network content (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

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

Catagory:Case Summaries