Case Summaries – Page 177 – Electronic Discovery Law

Margolis v. Dial Corp., No. 12-CV-0288-JLS (WVG), 2012 WL 2588704 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? request for a preservation order as to voicemail and instant messages where defendants had already sent litigation hold notices requiring preservation such that Plaintiffs? request was moot; Court further declined to enter preservation order as to backup tapes where defendants established that their preservation would impose a significant burden and that the contents were likely duplicative and where the court found that the backup tapes did not fall within the exception identified in Zubulake v UBS Warburg, 220 FRD 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail, instant messages, backup tapes

ADT Secs. Servs. Inc. v. Pinnacle Sec. LLC, No. 10 C 7467, 2012 WL 7170633 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that its failure to issue a specific litigation hold was mitigated by prior imposition of a no-delete policy which would have prevented any loss of evidence, the court determined it needed additional information on the scope of the policy and ordered defendant to provide information to determine if the scope of the policy was sufficiently broad and how it was communicated to employees; where defendant acknowledged that it did not search certain individual computers because all files created were to be saved in the ?My Documents? folder which was saved to a network server, the court noted the lack of assurance that employees followed the default settings and that they did not save ESI in folders outside of ?My Documents? and thus ordered a search of particular employees? computers using Plaintiff?s key word search terms

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kolon Indus. v. E.I. Du Pon De Nemours & Co., No. 3:11cv622, 2012 WL 614137 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to compel production of ?computer images and dumpster files? for 29 custodians upon finding that the information sought was relevant and that production would not be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer images and “dumpster files”

Stanfill v. Talton, No. 5:10-CV-255(MTT), 2012 WL 1035385 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved only portions of a relevant video tape and allowed the remainder to be recorded over, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions because plaintiff did not establish that a duty to preserve existed or, if it did, that it was owed to the plaintiff and because the level of culpability with which the video was lost did not support a spoliation sanction in the 11th circuit

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of defendant in jail

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

MPCA King of Spades v. T.E.C. 2 Broad., Inc., No. 1:11cv00080, 2012 WL 1203372 (W.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In litigation including claims that defendants had publically broadcast plaintiffs? copyrighted music without permission, the court noted that the question of ?what songs have been played and when? was at the ?heart? of the litigation and that the inability to retrieve that information in an ?easily accessible format? was the result of defendants? failure to preserve such that mirror imaging was warranted to determine if deleted programming logs could be restored and ordered that defendant bear the risk of any possible interruption to its ability to broadcast while the copying occurred (i.e., plaintiff would not be liable for any interruption in programming)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Programming logs

Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10-cv-204, 2012 WL 1886353 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding defendants? search efforts inadequate, court ordered discovery re-opened and that defendant conduct specific additional discovery, including additional searches on specific repositories, and provide specific information regarding how its search efforts were conducted and by whom; the court also provided a good discussion of preservation obligations, but ultimately concluded that additional information was necessary to make a determination regarding the reasonableness of defendants efforts; ultimately, court declined to impose drastic sanctions, but ordered additional discovery and that defendants pay monetary sanctions (attorneys? fees and cost)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re White Tail Oilfield Servs., No. 11-0009, 2012 WL 4857777 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the petitioner (for an order compelling production) had access to plaintiff?s Facebook account but argued that merely taking screen shots would not include deleted information and where plaintiff alleged numerous difficulties with using the ?download your information? feature such that he could not produce the contents himself, the court ordered plaintiff to produce the information within 7 days but also noted that because the petitioner had access to the password, it could access the account and utilize the ?download your information? button, which would send that information only to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff would then be obligated to forward that information to Petitioner?s counsel

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Hunter v. State of Delaware, —A.3d—, 2012 WL 5349395 (Del. Oct. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the police department?s failure to preserve relevant surveillance footage of events at the police station following defendant?s arrest (by allowing it to be automatically recorded over), the Supreme Court of Delaware determined that the lost recording was not dispositive evidence and that the criminal trial was therefore not ?fundamentally unfair? and thus held that the trial court properly determined that a missing evidence instruction was a sufficient remedy and that fundamental fairness did not require a judgment on acquittal on the Assault and Resisting Arrest charges

Nature of Case: Criminal: Assault and Resisting Arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(LBS)(JCF), 2012 Wl 3964742 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed in depth a myriad of important discovery issues (e.g. ?phasing, sampling, and proportionality?); as to the question of reasonable accessibility, court clarified that a showing of undue burden alone is insufficient to establish inaccessibility and that the alleged burden must be ?associated with some technological feature which inhibits accessibility? and, noting that defendant?s databases were not inaccessible because of such a feature, found that rule 26(b)(2)(B) presented ?no barrier? to discovery of the at-issue databases; turning to the question of proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court focused on section (iii) and, after discussing options to lessen Defendant?s burden, including sampling or a ?document dump,? found that most ESI was subject to production for reasons including the importance of the information to the case, the high financial stakes and Defendant?s ?ample resources,? the importance of the issues being litigated, and Defendant?s exaggeration of the burden and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives

Nature of Case: Putative class action asserting gender discrimination by employer

Electronic Data Involved: Database content

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Catagory:Case Summaries