Case Summaries – Page 182 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Trail v. Lesko, NO. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa. Com. Pl. July 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Relying on PA Rule of Civil Procedure 4011(b) ?which bars discovery that would cause ?unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression …?? court denied cross motions to compel discovery of parties? social media content ?because the intrusions that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case?

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media content (e.g., Facebook)

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Syncora Guarantee, Inc., 939 N.Y.S.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, the court rejected defendant?s position that the requesting party should bear the costs of production and adopted the Zubulake standard which requires ?the producing party to bear the initial costs of searching for, retrieving and producing discovery, but permits the shifting of costs between parties? upon consideration of several factors.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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”

Catagory:Case Summaries