Case Summaries – Page 186 – 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

Excel Gold Products, Inc. v. MacNeill Eng?g Co., Inc., No. 11 C 1928, 2012 WL 1570772 (May 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite finding that plaintiff had not produced sufficient information regarding its review procedures to establish that reasonable steps were taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the court found that concerns of ?overriding fairness? precluded waiver where plaintiff had attempted to enter into a clawback agreement and where defense counsel?s rejection of such an agreement (because there was a protective order) could ?readily? have been interpreted to mean that inadvertently produced materials would be returned without dispute; plaintiff was ordered to conduct privilege review of documents produced, to the extent not already done

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

In re Specs, No. C 10-04250 YGR (DMR), 2012 WL 4120246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court ordered sanctions for Plaintiffs? violation of a court order compelling production where Plaintiffs certified their production was complete and thereafter made at least four additional significant productions such that the court concluded that Plaintiffs? certification of completeness was either ?knowingly false, or ? made without confirming the adequacy of their collection and production efforts? and ordered payment of reasonable expenses including attorneys fees and that Plaintiffs file certification that their discovery is complete and that any documents produced thereafter could not be used by Plaintiff at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lechase Constr. Servs. LLC v. Info. Advantage, Inc., NO. 2011/7765, 2012 WL 12294457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s request for an order approving the use of key words to locate responsive documents and instructed that if Plaintiff and/or its counsel was capable of searching both email and attachments, they may proceed with ?self-collection? but that if they could not, a vendor would be required to run the searches; court encouraged cooperation in determining keywords to be utilized

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

Catagory:Case Summaries