Case Summaries – Page 189 – Electronic Discovery Law

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

State Nat?l Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Camden, No. 08-5128 (NLH)(AMD), 2012 WL 960431 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Award of attorney?s fees for investigation into possibility of spoliation where defendant failed to institute a litigation hold was proper, even where no spoliation was established, because the ?non-breaching party still has suffered damages in the context of attorneys? fees and costs? as a result of the need to perform the investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3656454 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a myriad of discovery disputes related to privilege logs, format of production, adequacy of plaintiff?s search for responsive materials, and the adequacy of its responses to defendant?s requests and ruled, among other things, that: plaintiff?s production in PDF was unacceptable and that production must be in native format or in the format requested by defendant and that plaintiff?s counsel?s statements (related to the court by sworn affidavit from defendant) were sufficient to put the adequacy of his compliance with Rule 26(g) in question and require production of plaintiff?s search strategy, including its interaction with counsel; court also compelled responses to a myriad of individual requests and ordered plaintiff to pay 80% of defendant?s fees in bringing this motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Robinson v. City of Arkansas, Kansas, No. 10-1431-JAR-GLR, 2012 WL 603576 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the sufficiency of defendant?s search for responsive ESI, among other discovery disputes, court found that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search and ordered additional searching as specified by the court and that defendant produce mirror images of the computers and external drives of a former supervisor for defendant that was particularly relevant to the litigation (the court called the failure to search his computers ?inexcusable and inexplicable?); court granted protective order precluding defendant?s expert from requirement to produce hardware (computers, etc.) already subject to production by defendant pursuant to court?s order where such duplication was unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase costs

Nature of Case: civil rights and employment law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No. C-10-02066 SI, 2012 WL 1534065 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Conducting waiver analysis pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), court found that plaintiff?s efforts to preclude disclosure were not reasonable where plaintiff claimed the inadvertent disclosure was the result of mistakes on the party of the party, its counsel, and its vendor, including the client?s failure to provide names of all law firm with which it had worked, the vendor?s failure to run a privilege search on all production batches, and counsel?s failure to adequately review the documents identified for production before providing them to opposing counsel; court also relied on the large number of documents inadvertently produced?more than one in 50?reasoning, ?[t]he high proportion of privilege documents evidences a failure on Kilopass?s part to properly screen the documents.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Linnebur v. United Telephone Assoc., Inc., No. 10-1379-RDR, 2012 WL 2370110 (D. Kan. June 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was able to establish that defendant destroyed ESI while under a duty to preserve but was unable to establish that she was actually prejudiced by the loss, the court denied Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions without prejudice and, noting that it was ?troubled? by Defendant?s preservation failures and counsel?s apparent failure to oversee his client?s discovery efforts, the court sua sponte reopened discovery solely as to the issue of spoliation

Nature of Case: Unlawful termination under Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Oyebade v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 1:11-cv-0968-JMS-DML, 2012 WL 4020971 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For a ?pattern of discovery misconduct, including the spoliation of evidence? (an audio tape of a meeting with HR), the court imposed an adverse inference and ordered the jury be instructed that Plaintiff destroyed the audio recording ?under circumstances that suggest that the contents ? would not be helpful in proving his claims? and further ordered that Plaintiff would not be allowed to present evidence regarding the meeting with HR, that the jury be instructed to accept defendant?s evidence about the meeting, and that defendant was entitled to its attorneys fees and expenses incurred in seeking redress for the spoliation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape of meeting with HR

State v. Fox, No. 11CA3302, 2012 WL 4946436 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: ?[B]ecause appellant failed to show that the video contained materially exculpatory evidence or that the state acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the evidence, appellant did not demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. Thus, the trial court did not err by overruling his motion to dismiss.?

Nature of Case: Criminal: assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Silver v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 11-12282, 2012 WL 2052949 (11th Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s litigation specialist initially asserted that no responsive emails were uncovered but later testified that she had recently been told of a possible repository of archived emails and that search efforts there were ongoing and already had uncovered several relevant emails, Circuit court found no abuse of discretion in District Court?s refusal to impose an adverse inference which requires a showing of bad faith noting that the litigation specialist?s ?initial lack of knowledge? was ?carelessness at most? and further reasoning that the admission that relevant emails had been discovered was a further indication that the defendant was not acting in bad faith

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract and similar claims related to plaintiff’s mortgage

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Registe v. State, No. S12A1190, 2012 WL 5381248 (Ga. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found cell phone provider?s voluntary release of non-content records was supported by good faith belief that there was an ongoing emergency where the company received information from the police that its records could help to identify an ?at-large suspect of a double homicide committed within a day of the request and that the suspect presented a present and immediate danger? and thus the release of records complied with the Stored Communications Act and a motion to suppress was properly denied

Nature of Case: Double murder

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone records

Catagory:Case Summaries