Case Summaries – Page 175 – Electronic Discovery Law

Scott Process Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, No. 2012CV00021, 2012 WL 6617363 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused discretion in granting motion to compel forensic imaging of third party?s devices where the record did not present a history of discovery violations or non-compliance sufficient to justify such intrusion and where the court?s order permitted ?unfettered forensic imaging? and contained none of the protections required to conduct forensic analysis (e.g., a neutral third-party examiner, production to counsel for privilege review prior to production to opposing counsel, etc.)

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic imaging

Spanish Peaks Lodge, LLC v. KeyBank National Assoc., No. 10-453, 2012 WL 895465 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Acknowledging the ?flexible and fact-specific? nature of the question of reasonable forseeability, the court addressed several possible triggers for the duty to preserve but ultimately determined that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the duty to preserve was reasonably foreseeable at the time defendant implemented its document retention policy or that defendant should have reasonably anticipated litigation and therefore denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions

Commercial Law Corp., P.C., v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., NO. 10-13275, 2012 WL 137835 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding metadata related to documents at issue was relevant to the action and that a forensic search of the computers used to generate the documents was ?an appropriate method to locate and extract that information,? but recognizing that at least one of the computers belonged to an attorney, court fashioned a protocol that allowed for forensic examination of the computers while simultaneously protecting potentially privileged information thereon

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Adair v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00037, 2012 WL 1965880 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering the burden of production and the court?s ability to relieve it, the court held that consideration of the cost of review alone, related to otherwise accessible data, can be considered in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost and may form the basis for a court?s decision to shift costs; court noted in this case, though, that a protective order and clawback agreement combined with a proposal to preclude production of any documents to or from in-house or outside counsel precluded defendant’s need to conduct a expensive privilege review and ordered production in accordance with the court?s order; affirmed with minor modifications 2012 WL 2526982

Electronic Data Involved: Esi

Rudolph v. Beacon Indep. Living, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-617-FDW-DSC, 2012 WL 2804114 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that Defendant instructed a non-party witness to delete relevant emails on his computer and that the non-party complied, court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions and ordered that defendant and the non-party preserve all ESI going forward, that defendant and the non-party submit their computers for forensic examination to recover deleted emails and to gather native format versions of information previously produced ?as fixed images,? that defendant pay the cost of the forensic examinations, and that defendant bear plaintiffs? attorneys costs and fees for preparing the underlying motion

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ?Deepwater Horizon? In the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179, 2012 WL 174645 (E.D. La. Jan. 20. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied BP?s motion for spoliation sanctions for Halliburton?s alleged loss of information concerning ?post incident cement testing? where BP had not demonstrated prejudice and, upon Halliburton?s representation that the modeling was done on a particular computer that it would submit for third-party forensic examination to determine if the modeling could be located, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop a protocol for examination with costs to be shared equally and reserved BP?s right to seek additional relief

Nature of Case: Claims arising from oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Computer modeling data/results

Earl v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-03137-JMC, 2012 WL 1458185 (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant documents were discovered upon forensic examination of a relevant hard drive and evidence indicated they had been modified, but not what the modifications were, the court reasoned that the documents had not been destroyed (because they were discovered on the hard drive) and that Plaintiffs did not dispute Defendant?s argument that the modifications could have been the result of merely saving the documents?without making other alterations?and thus declined to grant plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pursuit Partners, LLC v. UBS AG, No. FSTX08CV084013452, 2012 WL 1624242 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Apr. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had violated a court order compelling production of responsive materials, as evidenced by the production of additional responsive documents from other witnesses and by plaintiff?s agent?s inability to relate his process for identifying and collecting responsive information, but declined to order the case dismissed and instead ordered plaintiff to ?once again respond to each discovery request? and outlined what information should be tracked with regard to those efforts

Nature of Case: Claims concerning the purchase of several collateralized debt obligations (CDO’S) by the plaintiffs which resulted in a substantial loss as a result of the credit ratings downgrades in the market

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2012 WL 3822129 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for electronic discovery costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 USC 1920 where Defendant?s bill of costs included many line item descriptions for ?intellectual effort? such as ?analyzing the discovery documents,? preparing for and participating in a ?kickoff call? and other communications with co-workers and vendors

Nature of Case: Patent and Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to electronic discovery

Catagory:Case Summaries