Case Summaries – Page 173 – Electronic Discovery Law

Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., No. 05-CV-6734T, 2012 WL 1067664 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where court found no evidence that defendant had instituted any litigation hold or any evidence surrounding its collection efforts and where defendant failed to preserve potentially relevant hard drives despite the knowledge that the emails potentially contained thereon could not be retrieved from the company?s backup tapes, the court found that defendant had acted with gross negligence and imposed monetary sanctions but declined to impose more severe sanctions where there was no evidence of ?bad faith or egregious gross negligence? or that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and various tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

In the Matter of OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 9349, 2012 WL 1561035 (Mar. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing when litigation was reasonably anticipated by Complaint Counsel (responsible for issuing the relevant Civil Investigative Demand), the court reasoned that anticipation of litigation was not triggered upon issuance of a ?second request? in connection with an ongoing investigation where the results of such investigations must first be analyzed to determine if an enforcement action is warranted and where the majority of investigations do not result in litigation; court denied respondent?s Motion to Compel

Nature of Case: FTC Civil Investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Relevant “communications”

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Barnes v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4101943 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs discovered, late in the discovery time period, that defendant?s database production was incomplete but defendant claimed plaintiffs were merely using the wrong query?a query that defendant had not yet produced?the court ordered that defendant produce the relevant query and left open plaintiffs? option to re-file its motion to compel production of additional data if, upon conducting its analysis with the proper query, it nonetheless determined (and could successfully show) that relevant data was missing

Nature of Case: Civil rights claims related to overdetention and strip searching of inmates

Electronic Data Involved: Database content, relevant database query

Coral Group Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 4:05-CV-0633-DGK, 2012 WL 4569468 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For intentional spoliation resulting in irreparable prejudice, including a ?discernible pattern? of efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of relevant financial information contained on the computer of Plaintiff?s outside accountant and the failure to preserve other data, the court ordered that plaintiff?s claims were dismissed with prejudice

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. ex rel Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS, 2012 WL 5415108 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the proper logging of privileged emails, the court adopted the position ?for which there is overwhelming support? (as cited in the opinion) ?that each email in an email string must be listed separately so that the court (and the opposing party) may make an attorney-client privilege determination with regard to each email in the string.?

Nature of Case: violations of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-890 TS, 2012 WL 1302288 (D. Utah Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? motion for sanctions the court distinguished the cases of Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) and Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009), found the defendant had not acted in bad faith, and rejected plaintiffs assertions that the duty to preserve arose from obligations to maintain information pursuant to corporate policy or an obligation to the government; noting that most relevant documents were from the 1990?s, the court also acknowledged that even where a preservation obligation exists, the passage of time can result in the inadvertent destruction or misplacement of evidence and the fading of human memories

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified in opinion

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 3307364 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. CV 11-08028-PCT-FJM, 2012 WL 129809 (Jan. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to produce a key explaining the codes used on an already-produced spreadsheet where Rule 34(a)(1)(A) ?explicitly places the burden of translating the data on the responding party? and where the task of providing plaintiff with the meaning of specifically identified acronyms was not overly burdensome compared to requiring plaintiff to figure them out using prior deposition testimony and ?informal communications with counsel?

Nature of Case: copyright infingement

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Catagory:Case Summaries