Case Summaries – Page 180 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ameripride Servs. Inc. v. Valley Indus. Serv., Inc., No. CIV S-00?113 LKK/FM, 2012 WL 1641749 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted recovery of costs related to ?internal scanning, importing and electronic review of documents? where plaintiff asserted that the documents were scanned and produced at defendant?s request, and in the electronic format demanded and where plaintiff asserted that ?importing, coding, and OCR ? were necessary to produce the documents? as demanded

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Abode Sys., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4092568 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs, court approved recovery of costs for scanning but, citing the Third Circuit decision in Race Tires Am. Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Corp., held that ?document collection, processing, and hosting? were not ?recoverable costs? and also held that, where the parties agreed that TIFF images were an acceptable form of production, but not required, the conversion was not ?necessarily obtained for use in the case? and thus related costs were not taxable under ? 1920; court indicated in footnote that had TIFF been the only agreed upon format of production, the outcome may have been different

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dent v. Siegelbaum, No. DKC 08-0886, 2012 WL 718835 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court did not err in denying plaintiff?s request for a spoliation instruction with respect to digital pictures taken of plaintiff which were deleted when a defendant (a police officer) connected the camera to his computer for uploading where there was no evidence ? to prove, or even suggest? that the officer intended to destroy the pictures and where ?a culpable state of mind? was a necessary element to be proven by a party seeking such sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photos

Moore v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., No. 11-CV-3552 (KAM)(JO), 11-CV-3624 (KAM)(JO), 2012 WL 1078000 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: District Court denied defendant?s objections to Magistrate Judge?s ruling denying request for forensic examination of plaintiffs? computers where plaintiffs each verified that they had conducted a search of all email accounts and produced all responsive emails and where both plaintiffs were told by their ISP that no further emails could be retrieved; court reasoned that there was no reason to discredit plaintiffs? representations and found that forensic examinations would be overly broad, intrusive, expensive, and would likely reveal irrelevant material

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computers and email accounts

United States v. Walker, No. 3:06-CV-16 (CDL), 2012 WL 1672992 (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing recovery of costs, court indicated applicability of 28 U.S.C. ? 1919 ?which allows recovery of ?just costs??because the case had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but noted that 28 U.S.C. ? 1920 could provide assistance in determining what costs are ?just? and approved costs for copying, including through scanning and Optical Character Recognition, but declined to approve costs related to ?processing? the documents so that defendants? counsel could review them in electronic form

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to Electronic Discovery

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 2072866 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants indicated that a relevant hard drive had crashed and been disposed of but that some relevant information had been recovered and where plaintiff was unable to establish that defendants acted in bad faith, court found defendants were grossly negligent in their failure to preserve the relevant hard drive which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff and ordered a ?spoliation charge? allowing but not requiring the jury to determine whether the spoliation warranted an adverse inference; opinion includes comprehensive discussion of relevant law and standards surrounding spoliation

Nature of Case: Racketeering and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

SEC v. Mercury Interactive LLC, No. C 07-02822 WHA, 2012 WL 4466582 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, the SEC mistakenly deleted documents based on a miscommunication/misunderstanding with the producing party including the mistaken belief that the documents were maintained elsewhere (e.g. by the producing party or its counsel) and thereafter could not produce them when requested, the magistrate judge found that the deletion was not in bad faith and that an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants failed to show the relevance of the missing documents; on appeal the District Court denied defendants? motion for relief from the magistrate judge?s order

Nature of Case: SEC investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910, 2012 WL 4955304 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of additional documents in CERCLA action where government had already produced a ?staggering? amount of discovery and indicated that additional discovery obligations would be burdensome and where the information sought would only be of ?limited relevance? to the issues of the case

Nature of Case: CERCLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries