Case Summaries – Page 186 – Electronic Discovery Law

Reid v. Ingerman Smith, LLP, No. CV 2012-0307(ILG)(MDG), 2012 WL 6720752 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiffs? social media content could be relevant to her claims, court ordered photos, communications and posts since January 2008 be produced to Plaintiff?s counsel for review and that relevant portions be produced in accordance with the court?s specific instructions (e.g., photos posted by third parties may be subject to production if relevant, posts and communications by third parties are relevant to the extent they contain observations of the plaintiff, etc.)

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

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

Edwards v. Ford Motor Corp., 2012 WL 553383 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found defendant?s arguments failed to establish undue burden and reasoned that defendant could not escape its discovery obligations ?because it has chosen to store those documents in a way that makes it difficult for Defendant to search for them,? that defendant?s estimations were based on ?a wider scope of documents than what Plaintiff is seeking,? and that defendant failed to provide sufficient detail to evaluate its argument

Electronic Data Involved: Employer issue laptop and contents

Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 (CBA), 2012 WL 3705001 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, seeking data related to the number of times and when defendant logged onto plaintiff?s accounting system, defendant paid for an expert to restore damaged media but found no responsive data thereon and where plaintiff thereafter sought access to the damaged media to conduct its own search, the court indicated it would not allow a fishing expedition, but that if plaintiff wanted to bear the costs of duplicating defendant?s restoration and search efforts, it could retain a neutral third-party expert to do so, limited to a search of specifically identified folders; as to an inoperable drive that the parties previously agreed would be considered inaccessible, court would allow plaintiff to pay for neutral third party?s examination to perform a limited review; court declined to compel affidavit from defendant indicating specific steps to locate and preserve relevant data

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive and copies of same

MGA Entm?t, Inc. v. Nat?l Prods. Ltd., No. CV 10-07083 JAK (SSx), 2012 WL 12886446 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of responsive documents relating to Defendant?s sale of products carrying the Little Tikes brand. Defendant had attached documents to its opposition motion that it had not previously produced to Plaintiff, which prompted the current motion. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant ?identify all custodians of documents referring or relating to Defendant?s sale? and conduct a ?forensic analysis of all Defendants? document custodians? to locate responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request for a forensic analysis, noting ?that the motion is based only on speculation and lacks conclusive proof that responsive documents are actually being withheld.? However the court found that Defendant?s ESI searching ?may have been inadequate? and were performed ?without guidance or supervision from an attorney on how to conduct a search.? The court ordered a meet and confer to identify custodians and agree on search terms, the Defendant must then perform the searches of ESI on Defendants’ computers/systems (supervised by an attorney who must then submit a declaration) and produce responsive documents.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brocade Commc?ns Sys. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 10-CV-03428-LHK, 2012 WL 70428 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff had shown good cause for requiring production of ?not reasonably accessible information,? the court granted plaintiff?s motion to inspect an individual defendant?s hard drive noting that such inspections had been allowed by other courts in cases of alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and further citing the relevance of the hard drive?s contents to the underlying claims, the inability to obtain the evidence elsewhere, and defendant?s inability to explain its statement that the hard drive in question had been ?recycled?; court held that plaintiff was ?not entitled to set the conditions of the inspection unilaterally nor select the person who will perform it? and ordered the parties to confer to agree on a protocol

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Moore v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. C 07-03850 SI, 2012 WL 669531 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendant?s motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference where the court determined plaintiff had a duty to preserve and that the deliberate wiping of his hard drive was in bad faith but declined to impose monetary sanctions or dismissal where plaintiff?s actions were not found to be sufficiently egregious, where plaintiff was forthcoming about the spoliation and his reasons (to protect personal and privileged information contained on the work-issued laptop), and where defendant had a substantial amount of the deleted material on backup tapes, etc. because of its backup practices

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from laptop

Tracy v. NVR, Inc., No. 04-CV-6541L, 2012 WL 1067889 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought to compel production of defendant?s litigation hold and a list of its recipients, court identified the underlying question as whether defendant?s duty to preserve extended to all potential opt-in plaintiffs and found that plaintiffs? significant delay in moving for conditional certification and the indirect nature of the evidence sought distinguished the case from Pippins v. KPMG and that plaintiffs failed to make the necessary preliminary showing of spoliation (which would justify production of the litigation hold notice) because they did not establish ?that documents that should have been preserved? were lost or destroyed; court granted defendant?s motion for sanctions for opt-in plaintiff?s spoliation of hard copy evidence (originals of a calendar indicating her daily activities, two disparate copies of which had been produced) and ordered that she be precluded from testifying as to her daily work activities during a three year period

Nature of Case: FLSA Class action

Electronic Data Involved: litigation hold notice, hard copy calendar

In re Jordan, —S.W.3d—, 2012 WL 1098275 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court conditionally granted writ of mandamus upon finding that In re Weekley Homes was controlling and that the lower court had abused its discretion by not following the procedures elaborated therein, including that the party who was granted access to relator?s computer (through a forensic examiner) failed to explain its search methodology or its expert’s credentials and that there was no evidence that the court considered a protective order

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Kravtsov v Town of Greenburgh, No. 10-cv-3142 (CS), 2012 WL 2719663 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance video despite notice of plaintiff?s claim and a request for preservation was at least grossly negligent in light of the failure to implement a litigation hold, the delay between the request for the video and efforts to retrieve it, and the ?collective ignorance? of the people who should have know how the surveillance system worked (the time stamp was set for the wrong time zone resulting in collection of the wrong footage?a mistake that was not discovered until the relevant footage had been recorded over) and where the court determined that because of the grossly negligent conduct, ?relevance [was] determined as a matter of law,? the court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference and payment of related costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Claims of discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, and religion, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and denial of a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff?s disability

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Perez-Garcia v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., No. 08-1448 (GAG), 2012 WL 2553274 (D.P.R. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found request for sanctions for defendant?s failure to retain records dating back to 1995 was not supported by the rules or the case law on the subject and stated that ?Corporations may maintain their records according to their business practices, so long as the record keeping does not afoul [sic] of the rules outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and judicially created rules of the court.? Addressing plaintiff?s citation to an Eighth Circuit case ?that states that a negative inference can be given when the company?s policy for retention of documents is unreasonable or in bad faith,? (Remington Arms Co. , 836 FRD 1103 (8th Cir. 1988)) the court found that defendant?s policy was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith

Nature of Case: Claims arising from crash of golf cart perhaps related to faulty emergency brake

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries