Case Summaries – Page 161 – Electronic Discovery Law

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165 (6th Cit. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Citing a court?s discretion in determining the strength of any adverse inference to be applied and noting that such a decision is determined on a case by case basis, the appellate court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a permissive rather than a non-rebuttable adverse inference for the defendants? bad faith spoliation of email

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Lane v. Vasquez, 961 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for default judgment for alleged spoliation of ?documents pertaining to his non-selections? (in hiring) where Plaintiff failed to present ?clear and convincing evidence? that the ?abusive behavior? occurred and failed to show why a lesser sanction would not sufficiently punish or deter Defendant?s behavior; court also addressed Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference as to several specific instances of spoliation and provided individual analysis for each piece of evidence and ultimately denied the adverse inference as to all evidence for reasons including the failure to establish that any documents were in fact destroyed and the court?s determination that an adverse inference would not rebut Defendant?s ?legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons? for the alleged adverse employment actions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ?Documents related to the hiring process for positions he was denied?

Maximum Human Performance, LLC v. Sigma-Tau Healthscience LLC, No 12-cv-6526-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 4537790 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Ind., Inc., No. 3:09-0487, 2013 WL 5306444 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Reasoning that a request for production cannot require a responding party to create documents that are not already in existence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of comparison sales reports for other U.S. sales districts where there was no dispute that the additional documents requested did not exist and would need to be created by extracting historical data from archive and backup data storage maintained by defendant

Nature of Case: Antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Sales data

You Fit, Inc. v. Pleasanton Fitness LLC, No. 8:12-CV-1917-T-27EAJ, 2013 WL 521784 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing request for preliminary injunction in trademark infringement action, court considered Yelp posting stating a customer?s confusion and found that consideration of the comment was appropriate in the context of an injunctive proceeding and also indicated in footnote that ?the comments are not hearsay because they are not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the comment. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c)(2). Rather, Plaintiffs invoke the comments to demonstrate the consumer?s confusion, a then-existing mental state of the declarant who posted the comments See Fed.R.Evid. 803(3).?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Social media content (e.g., Yelp review)

United States ex rel Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 1:03-cv-680-SEB-WGH, 2013 WL 1666745 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court awarded costs in favor of defendant, including costs related to electronic discovery: ?We have carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections to the nature of the costs sought to be recovered by Defendant, in particular, to the costs incurred in connection with the production of electronically stored information, but we do not find Plaintiff’s objections to be meritorious. As Defendant points out in its briefings, we have awarded as costs the expense of producing electronically stored information in several other recent cases, and Plaintiff’s objections are based largely on judicial decisions issued by courts in other districts and circuits, including the Eastern District of Missouri and the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, which are contrary to the rulings within our Seventh Circuit.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (taxable costs)

Braun v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. B234212, 2013 WL 520030 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to substantiate his privacy objections and provided the court with no information to weigh against defendant?s stated need for discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the production of plaintiff?s home computer, which contained relevant photographic evidence; trial court did abuse its discretion when it ordered terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s intentional deletion of allegedly private information before producing his computer for inspection where Toyota offered only speculation as justification for such a serious sanction (e.g., ??we will never know? what was destroyed?) and where plaintiff did produce more than 13,000 photographs for inspection; case was remanded for consideration of serious sanctions short of terminating plaintiff?s case

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Selected contents of home computer, photographs

Eaglesmith v. Ray, No. 2:11-cv-00098 JAM-AC, 2013 WL 1281823 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court allowed recovery of costs in categories including, ? ?heavy litigation scanning,? bates labeling in electronic format . . . ?hourly tech time,? ?make 1 blowback set of all PDF files outside off [sic]folders; slipsheet with file name? but declined to allow recovery of ?OCR costs? absent evidence that the parties agreed to make documents searchable

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Warner v. Chilcott Labs. Ireland Ltd. v. Ipax Labs., Inc., Nos. 08-6304 (WJM), 09-2073(WJM), 09-1233(WJM), 2013 WL 1716468 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought ?the cost of file conversion, Bates labeling, and storing electronic documents produced during litigation,? the clerk taxed only the ?cost of TIFF conversion . . . and the costs of making copies of original dvd?s and the original CD?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI Taxable costs

Catagory:Case Summaries