Case Summaries – Page 160 – Electronic Discovery Law

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.)

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. V. Earl Scheib, Inc., No. 11-CV-0788-GPC (WVG), 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant presented evidence that the cost of retrieving the requested information?not including the cost of attorney review or the time spent coordinating the production–was equal to the amount in controversy, the court concluded that the requests at issue were unduly burdensome and found that even where Plaintiff had explained the relevancy of the information sought, ?the expense associated with responding ? [was] too great when weighed against what is at stake in the litigation?; court?s analysis included consideration of inaccessibility based on the costs of production and noted that other discovery was available

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kwan Software Eng?g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC, No. C 12-03762 SI, 2013 WL 5487421 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of ESI in searchable form with metadata but Defendant produced TIFF images without metadata, court ordered re-production of ESI in accordance with parties’ agreement and amended the pretrial schedule

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and metadata

West Penn Allegheny Health Sys. v. UPMC, No. 2:09-cv-00480-JFC, 2013 WL 12134101 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a non-party resisted production of requested information arguing that it could be more easily obtained from elsewhere and that production would impose an undue burden, including an estimated $38,00 in personnel costs alone, the court reasoned that there was no rule prohibiting Plaintiff from seeking documents from a non-party that were also likely to be in Defendant?s possession and, addressing the alleged burden, rejected arguments based on the documents? lack of organization (?less than optimal recordkeeping? did not rise to the level of ?undue burden?); where the requesting party offered to pay the costs of collection and review (by outside counsel), court rejected non-party?s privacy concerns in light of the protective order and recommended that if the non-party rejected the cost sharing offer, he should be required to pay for production himself; motion to quash denied

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Petition of John W. Danforth Group, Inc, No. 13-MC033S, 2013 WL 3324017 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where petitioner sought to perpetuate evidence and an order of preservation pursuant to Rule 27 in light of an anticipated witness?s untruthfulness about his use of social media and refusal to turn over his personal mobile phone or to allow for a backup to be made absent a court order, the court declined to issue such an order where Rule 27 relief should be granted ?only in special circumstances to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost? and where the petitioner?s ?generalized statements of concern? were insufficient to warrant pre-complaint intervention

Nature of Case: Pre-complaint order of preservation

Electronic Data Involved: Anticipated witness’s mobile device

Jewell v. Aaron?s Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05630-AT, 2013 WL 3770837 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to approve Defendant?s discovery request for 87 opt-in Plaintiffs to produce all content of websites, blogs, or social media sites posted by them during work hours for a four year period where Defendant failed to make a ?sufficient predicate? showing that the information sought was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and where the request was overly burdensome in light of the ?remote relevance of the information? sought

Nature of Case: Collective Action

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of websites, blogs, social media (e.g., Facebook) posted by Plaintiffs during work hours for a four year period

Catagory:Case Summaries