Case Summaries – Page 189 – Electronic Discovery Law

MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., NO. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919263 (N.D. Tex. April 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court acknowledged that the parties could have communicated better to resolve the issue, but granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production of ESI in .tiff format with a summation load file (including metadata) where Plaintiff indicated issues with Defendant?s production but where Defendant failed to timely follow up and then voluntarily re-produced ESI but not in a format that included metadata; the court also noted the strong showing that the metadata would be useful in the case and Plaintiff?s willingness to substantially narrow the number of documents sought, thus reducing the burden of production

Electronic Data Involved: ESI with metadata

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that ?producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,? but also found that in the present case the District Court abused its discretion ?in ruling that, within its spoliation analysis, Bull intentionally withheld the original documents from UPS? and further abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction of dismissal with prejudice

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of hardcopy doctor’s notes

Gonzalez v. Las Vegas Police Dept., No. 2:09-cv-00381-JCM-PAL, 2012 WL 1118949 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where video surveillance tape was destroyed in contravention of duty to preserve, the court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions (an adverse inference) where it determined that there was no prejudice to plaintiff because defendants identified the three officers/employees who processed plaintiff on the night of the allegedly wrongful arrest and because defendants conceded that the initial booking processes indicated that plaintiff was not the person sought by the relevant warrant

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights (wrongful arrest) and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

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

Coral Group Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 4:05-CV-0633-DGK, 2012 WL 4569468 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For intentional spoliation resulting in irreparable prejudice, including a ?discernible pattern? of efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of relevant financial information contained on the computer of Plaintiff?s outside accountant and the failure to preserve other data, the court ordered that plaintiff?s claims were dismissed with prejudice

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. ex rel Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS, 2012 WL 5415108 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the proper logging of privileged emails, the court adopted the position ?for which there is overwhelming support? (as cited in the opinion) ?that each email in an email string must be listed separately so that the court (and the opposing party) may make an attorney-client privilege determination with regard to each email in the string.?

Nature of Case: violations of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-890 TS, 2012 WL 1302288 (D. Utah Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? motion for sanctions the court distinguished the cases of Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) and Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009), found the defendant had not acted in bad faith, and rejected plaintiffs assertions that the duty to preserve arose from obligations to maintain information pursuant to corporate policy or an obligation to the government; noting that most relevant documents were from the 1990?s, the court also acknowledged that even where a preservation obligation exists, the passage of time can result in the inadvertent destruction or misplacement of evidence and the fading of human memories

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified in opinion

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 3307364 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Catagory:Case Summaries