Case Summaries – Page 163 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK-PSG, 2013 WL 772668 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Applying relevant factors identified in In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), court concluded that consultant?s use of workplace email did not waive privilege where, although the factors were evenly split, there was no evidence that the employee actually monitored employees? emails and because of the ?importance of the attorney-client privilege?

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claim defendants colluded to “avoid poaching each other’s employees and to stabilize their compensation packages.”

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 1:10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2013 WL 1192947 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found that ?costs of converting the documents in the format agreed upon by the parties are properly taxable? but that ?metadata extraction? could not be ?properly analogized to making copies and that such costs were not taxable; where costs associated with metadata extraction were not identified separately from ?production copying, file conversion, and metadata extraction? on invoices, court reduced requested costs by one third

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs for electronic discovery

Neustar, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 12-02574 EJD, 2013 WL 1755489 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In dispute over search terms and the appropriate date range for discovery, court cited Defendant?s declarations showing that Plaintiffs? proposed terms would result in a far greater volume of ESI to be reviewed and would triple the costs of production and found ?no reason? not to use Defendant?s proposed terms and reasoned that ?no search is ever perfect,? but that Defendant?s terms would ?likely yield sufficient documents?; date range was restricted to time period of the date of the contract to the present rather than Plaintiffs? proposal to begin two years before the agreement was formed

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. v. Tormey, No. 11-cv-00327, 2013 WL 3270374 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for alleged fabrication of evidence and violation of the court’s order to produce certain hardware (computers, hard drives) related to the alleged fabrication but denied sanctions where Defendant consistently claimed he had no additional hardware to be produced and consistently stuck with his explanations related to the creation of the allegedly fabricated documents and surrounding circumstances; regarding fabrication, court explained that ?Discrepancies and inconsistencies without more, however, do not necessarily fabrication make.?; as to both spoliation and fabrication court indicated it would be up to the jury to decide who to believe

Nature of Case: Claims related to loan repayment and whether loan to defendant was forgiven in “walk-away” agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drives

Higgins v. Koch Dev. Corp., No. 3:11-cv-81-RLY-WGH, 2013 WL 3366278 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of Plaintiffs? Facebook information/content, the court rejected Plaintiffs? claims that the request violated their right to privacy and the privacy rights of their Facebook ?friends? who had posted on their walls or tagged them in photographs, and ordered the plaintiffs to produce material concerning their claimed injuries and their effects

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Bradford Techs., Inc. v. NCV Software.com, No. C 11-04621 EDL, 2013 WL 4033840 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was previously sanctioned for violating the stipulated protective order when Plaintiff?s President viewed Defendant?s source code; where Plaintiff?s president later deleted evidence related to his violation of the stipulated protective order despite a duty to preserve (arising from Defendant?s requests for preservation and two court orders requiring the same), made no effort to preserve the other contents of his laptop, and made ?inconsistent representations to the court?; and where a second employee claimed he was not notified of his preservation obligations and thus wiped the contents of his laptop (at a ?suspicious? time), including a relevant power point, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions absent a showing of prejudice and upon its determination that the orders requiring preservation were arguably ambiguous (?insofar as they required Plaintiff to preserve evidence while at the same time ordering Plaintiff to return discs and delete source code, as Defendants requested?) but did order a monetary award of reasonable expenses that the defendants incurred in taking expedited discovery regarding the source code violation and indicated that ?[t]he court may well allow? Plaintiff?s President?s credibility to be impeached at trial regarding his violation of the protective order

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of laptop(s)

Anderson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-111-SJM, 2013 WL 4455602 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation

Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives

Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys. LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-296, 2013 WL 682848 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and ordered production of a ?complete copy? of Defendant?s database, despite noting that the request appeared ?facially intrusive,? where the information was ?highly relevant? to the claims in the case, where Defendant failed to provide sufficient information regarding the allegedly proprietary contents of the database, and where an attorneys? eyes only designation was sufficient to protect any trade secrets, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Trip Mate, Inc. v. Stonebridge Cas. Ins. Co., Nos. 10-0793-CV-W-ODS, 11-1097-CV-W-ODS, 2013 WL 3336631 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Acknowledging that the Eight Circuit has not yet addressed how section 1920(4) relates to electronically stored information, the court noted the persuasive reasoning in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) which held that ?scanning documents and converting computer data into readable format constitute copying within the meaning of section 1920(4)? and found the amounts sought by Plaintiff to be reasonable

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable electronic discovery costs

Catagory:Case Summaries