Case Summaries – Page 181 – Electronic Discovery Law

Geller v. Von Hagens, No. C11-80269, 2012 WL 1413461 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted third party?s motion to quash a subpoena where the court determined the subpoena was unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the third party?s estimate that the cost of identifying the requested information could exceed $40,000?a significant sum for a non-profit museum; ?as important? as the analysis of undue burden was the fact that plaintiff sought the requested information only from third party sources rather than from defendants which the court found ?only exacerbate[ed] the burden?

Nature of Case: Defamation and tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

915 Broadway Assocs. LLC v. Paul, Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP, No. 403124/08, 2012 WL 593075 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For egregious spoliation, including intentional deletions by key custodians, plaintiff?s failure to investigate storage practices or to ensure preservation, several custodians? failure to suspend auto-delete functions associated with their files, failure to suspend destruction of backup tapes, and replacement of relevant servers, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 08cv1392-JLS(NLS), 2012 WL 28289 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants? mistake in searching resulted in the failure to produce relevant documents and where plaintiff alleged that those documents would have established numerosity for purposes of his motion to certify (and where the motion was denied without them), court found that the mistake was not willful or in bad faith and that there was no prejudice where plaintiff was free to re-file his motion and thus, as a sanction, awarded limited attorneys? fees incurred as the result of defendants? mistake and noted plaintiff?s failure to timely review the documents produced by defendants, which may have alerted him to the problems prior to filing his motion for class certification

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

White Baptist Mem?l Healthcare Corp., No. 08-2478, 2012 WL 3776918 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion seeking reversal of Clerk?s entry of bill of costs and specifically found that costs related to ?OCR capture? which the court acknowledged was a ?form of electronic discovery? were recoverable and that the OCR capture in this case was a necessary party of the discovery process

Nature of Case: Violation of FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to electronic discovery

Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4829615 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For failure to produce unredacted database entries despite three court orders to do so, court found that defendant had acted in bad faith to withhold relevant documents and, as a sanction, ordered that facts be established in plaintiffs? favor, namely that the rental listing database included directives from landlords that clients receiving government housing assistance should not be assisted in applying for housing with those landlords; court also ordered defendant to pay Plaintiffs $231,000 in attorneys fees

Nature of Case: Housing discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Hageman v. Accenture, No. 10-1759 (RHK/TNL), 2012 WL 8993423 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Analyzing a question of control, court ruled that where defendant?s employees could access emails/information stored in a third party?s server ?within his or her normal day-to-day work? then that information was within defendant?s control but that information which was not accessible to the employees was no longer in defendant?s control, and thus properly requested using a Rule 45 subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/emails stored on third party server

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Blount v. Tate, No. 7:11CV00091, 2012 WL 4341053 (W.D. Va. Aug 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s allegations of spoliation for defendants? loss of potentially relevant video footage, court declined to impose sanctions because it could not find that defendants had the necessary culpable mind reasoning that 1) defendants? production of other relevant video footage of the same event and another, similar event, contradicted plaintiff?s claims that defendants feared the video would cause them to lose the lawsuit, 2) that ?digital information can be destroyed or hopelessly misplaced in a data base at the touch of a button, without warning or recourse, and the prison?s system for preserving footage included three transition points when a technician?s inadvertent error could have destroyed or misplaced the? relevant footage, and 3) that the footage of the incident involving the plaintiff was not the only footage lost, suggesting that ?the event causing that loss was not intended to harm [Plaintiff?s] case?

Nature of Case: Eight Amendment violations, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Camcorder footage

Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E&J Gallo Winery, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-326-BR, 2012 WL 3202677 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s efforts to recover costs related to ?technical, specialized services that were needed in order to ?collect, process, preserve, track, copy to digital format, and ultimately produce? the large amount of electronically stored information (?ESI?) that was utilized in the discovery process in this case,? the court adopted the Third Circuit?s reasoning in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp and thus determined that ?a prevailing party may recover costs associated with copying or duplicating its files, but it may not receive reimbursement for any other ESI-related expenses?; in the present case the court found that ?the only tasks that involve copying are the conversion of native files to TIFF and PDF formats and the transfer of files onto CDs?

Nature of Case: Unfair and deceptive trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: ESI taxable costs

James v. Edwards, No. CL11-225, 2012 WL 9735714 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to compel disclosure of the contents of Plaintiff?s Facebook account and ordered Plaintiff to provide his counsel with his username and password, which his counsel could then utilize to provide access to Plaintiff?s Facebook account to defense counsel; defendant was not allowed to be present during the review of his Facebook account; court imposed date range on relevant materials; court found Plaintiff?s expectation of privacy in his account ?misplaced? in light of Facebook?s privacy disclaimers which ?dispel any notion that information one chooses to share, even if only with one friend, will not be disclosed to anybody else?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Catagory:Case Summaries