Case Summaries – Page 188 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Gottlieb v. Iskowitz, 2012 Wl 2337290 (Cal. Ct. App. June 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Appellate court found that trial court did not abuse discretion in imposing terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s egregious and willful discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce responsive materials in violation of the court?s multiple orders and subsequent ?dump? of 15 million pages of uncategorized documents that were not Bates labeled or accompanied by a corresponding index and which appeared to be largely non-responsive based on a review of 10% of the documents (?A dump of disorganized documents by definition is non-compliant.?); trial court?s award of significant damages was reversed and remanded for a new default proveup hearing on damages

Nature of Case: Libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Jarman, No. 11-31217, 2012 WL 2700403 (5th Cir. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court affirmed district court?s granting of defendant?s motion to compel production of a mirror image of a hard drive containing child pornography evidence where defendant?s expert presented unrebutted evidence that she could not conduct her investigation at a government facility because of ?time limitations and restrictions? and thus the circuit court could not conclude that the district court?s determination of ?no ?amply opportunity?? to investigate was clear error; court clarified, however, that it rejected the notion that inconvenience equated to a failure on the part of the government to make the child pornography evidence reasonably available and clarified that when such evidence is made available for inspection at a government facility, ?that is reasonable availability? such that the only issue to be resolved is whether the conditions imposed do not provide ?ample opportunity? for examination of the material

Nature of Case: child pornography; Adam Walsh Act

Electronic Data Involved: Child pornography evidence on hard drive

Johnson v. Allstate Inc. Co., No. 07-cv-0781-SCW, 2012 WL 4936598 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed question of taxable costs and relied heavily on Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) and Race Tires Am. Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) and allowed recover as to rendering ESI word searchable, the creation of TIFF images, the creation of hard copies, photocopying, the creation of graphics for use at the hearing, and fees for obtaining transcripts but denied recovery as to the creation of a litigation database, processing of ESI, extraction of metadata, deduplication, electronic data hosting, and ?preparing ESI for production?

Nature of Case: Violations of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entm?t., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4504818 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over jurisdictional discovery, court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a ?small slice? of defendant?s Google Analytics data (which tracks and accumulates data related to websites? visitors) related to the number of visitors to defendant?s website(s) from Iowa-based IP addresses; court agreed with plaintiff that it was entitled to ?more? than a hard copy PDF ?screen grab? of the relevant information and indicated that it anticipated production as HTML pages that could be opened with a standard internet browser, but that if that was not an agreeable solution, another hearing would be held

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Google Analytics

Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transport, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 492 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that plaintiffs? requests would result in an undue burden in light of the number of defendant?s employees and the number of farm labor contractors with whom it did business (because of the high volume of records) the court concluded that sampling was ?an appropriate method? to relieve defendant?s burden and, recognizing that even sampling would be burdensome, ordered ?a reduced sample? which would nonetheless ?yield meaningful information? and further ordered defendant to perform a random sample of 50% of payroll and timekeeping records for designated months and years ?unless the parties agree to a different sampling method;? Court denied (in part) third-party?s motion to quash where the information sought was relevant and where the third party presented evidence of burden as to production in hard copy but presented no such evidence as to electronic records which the third party indicated it maintained

Nature of Case: Wage and hours class action

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll and timekeeping records, ESI

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

Lake Village Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Hatchett, 407 S.W. 3d 521 (Ark. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court did not err when it struck part of defendants’ answers as sanction for discovery violations where trial court’s order specifically detailed the opportunities afforded defendants to either comply with the email request or furnish a basis upon which the court could determine they were trying to comply with the request, and trial court found that defendants failed to produce the emails in response to the discovery request, failed to produce the emails when ordered by the court, failed to timely notify the court of compliance problems, failed to furnish sufficient information of their good faith efforts, and failed to furnish information regarding when compliance could be expected

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, negligence, breach of fiduciary and confidential duty, medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kruse Tech. P?ship v. Daimler AG, No. SACV 10-1066 JVS (RNBx), 2012 WL 12888668 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant moved to re-tax $202K of costs for exemplification and reproduction that were denied by the clerk. The court found that costs of copies provided to Defendant?s witnesses were not necessary or taxable because they were not requested by or tendered to the opposing party, as discussed in In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court allowed $12.013.68 in XDD?s costs for converting documents to TIFF, performing OCR (required by court order) and producing the documents to Plaintiff. Defendant argued costs from third-party vendor IAV for storage of responsive documents and processes to allow digital searching of Defendant?s databases should have been allowed by the clerk. Plaintiff argued these were costs for collection and review of documents, rather than for copying. Plaintiff also argued the OCR fees were duplicative and that Defendant?s invoices did not provide sufficient detail to support taxation. The court found these costs were not taxable (searching and organizing rather than copying, as well as duplicative) and properly denied by the clerk.

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Eisai v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 08-4168 (MLC), 2012 WL 1299379 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motions to compel discovery from an additional 175 custodians and an additional 27 custodians (two separate requests) upon its determination that the requests were cumulative or duplicative and that the burden outweighed the potential benefit; of note was the significant expenditures of the defendants on already-produced discovery and the volumes produced as well as the estimated cost of the additional requested discovery, where the estimated burden of producing the additional 175 custodians was 140,00 hours of manpower and roughly $15 million dollars?an amount that exceeded the expected value of plaintiff?s claim

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 200+ custodians

Catagory:Case Summaries