Case Summaries – Page 180 – Electronic Discovery Law

Banks v. Enova Fin., No. 10 C 4060, 2012 WL 5995729 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law by ordering that, as a sanction for grossly negligent spoliation of audio tapes pursuant to Defendant?s retention policy, there would be a presumption of a factual dispute at the summary judgment state as to whether Plaintiff hung up on a customer and that if the case proceeded to trial, the court should instruct the jury with a ?spoliation charge? ?not an adverse inference?which would allow but not require the jury to presume that the lost evidence was relevant and favorable to the innocent party; District Court acknowledged that bad faith was necessary to impose an adverse inference, but found that this was not an adverse inference and was therefore within the court?s discretion

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of relevant phone calls

Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Eng?g, Inc., No. 8:08-CV-2446-T-27TBM, 2012 Wl 5387830 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court noted that the Third Circuit has ?persuasively reasoned that ?only the conversion of native files to TIFF (the agreed-upon default format for production of ESI), and the scanning of documents to create digital duplicates are generally recognized as the taxable ?making copies of material,?? (Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp, 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012)) but held that in the present case, the ?precise scope of ? 1920(4) [was] immaterial? because of the parties? contract regarding costs and expenses and declined to deny recovery or reduce the amount sought

Nature of Case: Engineering malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs

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

Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387(E.D. Mich. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to authorize access to her Facebook account where defendant did not have the ?generalized right to rummage at will through information that Plaintiff has limited from public view? absent a threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and where defendant failed to make that showing (court noted, for example, that the pictures available for public viewing on plaintiff?s account did not show activity inconsistent with plaintiff?s claims of injury)

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook contents

Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, No. 10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2012 WL 777500 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant?s responses to discovery were incomplete, court ordered defendant to ?proceed with the forensic search of their computer systems using protocols agreed upon by the parties? but declined to compel defendant to bear the cost of the examination until final costs were known; defendant was also ordered to institute a litigation hold where defendant?s deposition testimony established that none had previously been issued

Nature of Case: Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Catagory:Case Summaries