Case Summaries – Page 199 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Univ. Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 2559552 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve video surveillance tape where the parties initially agreed that the tapes for the thirty days preceding the subpoena need not be saved, thus creating the understanding that tape recycling could proceed as usual, and where, as a result of this agreement, defendants could not be said to have failed to preserve in bad faith; court also declined to infer spoliation absent evidence that additional, relevant ESI existed that had not been produced

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act and The VA Fraud Against Taxpayers Act

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Olesky v. Gen. Electric Co., No. 06 C 1245, 2011 WL 3471016 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Io Group, Inc. v. GLBT, Ltd., No. C-10-1282 MMC (DMR), 2011 WL 4974337 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion for sanctions and ordered adverse inference for defendants? spoliation where defendants failed to suspend the automatic deletion function on their email which deleted both incoming and outgoing emails after three to four days and where defendants admitted to deleting relevant audio visual content from their server, court also ordered payment of attorney?s fees and costs for defendants? failure to adequately respond to the court?s order for particular information related to their preservation and collection efforts; court rejected assertions that UK Data Protection Act does not permit the retention of personal information and required deletion of emails where defendant offered no evidence that the deleted data contained personal information protected by statute and also rejected the position that the court lacked authority to order production pursuant to the Data Protection Act

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Morris v Scenera Research LLC, No. 09 CVS 19678, 2011 WL 3808544 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court upheld clawback agreement between the parties which held that inadvertent production would not result in waiver; where parties entered into 26(f) agreement regarding what metadata need be produced but where plaintiff moved to compel production of additional fields because those provided did not allow him to search effectively or identify the source of particular documents, the court entered into an extensive analysis of the ?form? and ?organization? requirements in Rule 34 and withheld ruling until defendant could provide evidence regarding the burden of providing an index that could allow identification of the source of each document

Nature of Case: State employment claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL 5438690 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Applying Washington State law, court held that return of employer-issued laptop containing attorney-client privileged information without asserting a claim of privilege as to those contents resulted in waiver of privilege; even where privilege was asserted as to certain contents prior to return of employer-issued laptop, privilege was waived where employer?s policies negated expectation of privacy, including as to web based email accessed on the laptop; court?s analysis applied four part test from In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of separation agreement, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

People v. Oyerinde, No. 298199, 2011 WL 5964613 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Trial court properly determined that Facebook messages from Defendant to his victim were admissible non-hearsay as party admissions pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2); trial court (in bench trial) indicated that it reviewed Facebook messages from victim to defendant and from victim to her sister to ?provide context? for Defendant and victim?s relationship and, on appeal, appellate court reasoned that ?[r]egardless whether some of the messages should not have been admitted under MRE 803(3), the trial court did not rely on the messages to prove that any events actually occurred; judgment of the trial court was affirmed

Nature of Case: Criminal: First-degree felony murder and carjacking

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

Adams v. Allianceone, Inc., No. 08-CV-248-JAH (WVG), 2011 WL 2066617 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendants? production in PDF format where plaintiff?s failed to request a specific format of production; where PDF format was ?reasonably usable? in light of the problems with the native format; where Rule 34 advisory committee notes allow for the translation of electronic data to allow production in a reasonably usable format; where there was ?insufficient evidence? to suggest that the data was converted from its native format to hinder plaintiff?s search ability; and where defendant ended up producing the native data to plaintiff?s satisfaction after conferring

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cute v. ICC Capital Mgmt., Inc., No. 6:09-cv-1761-Orl-22DAB, 2011 WL 3222133 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court disallowed taxation of costs ?paid to third party vendors for the processing and production of 11,447 pages of electronic documents? where ?a charge for a third party vendor of this size should have been the subject of specific good faith discussions between counsel before being incurred if ICC expected to tax such as part of costs at the conclusion to the litigation.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Liberman v. Fedex Ground Package Syst., Inc., 2011 WL 145474 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant negligently failed to preserve information that would have revealed whether a FedEx agent delivered packages to the address of the relevant accident on the day in question and where the presence of such a delivery person was disputed by FedEx, the court declined to grant default judgment but ordered an adverse inference establishing that a FedEx agent had delivered a package to the relevant address on the date of the accident

Nature of Case: Injury resulting from being hit by delivery handtruck loaded with boxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hock Foods, Inc. v. William Blair & Co., LLC, No. 09-2588-KHV, 2011 WL 884446 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Based upon affidavits of defendant?s General Counsel and Litigation Technology Project Manager identifying the burden of responding to plaintiff?s requests for production, including potentially searching 12,786 boxes of hardcopy and 12 terabytes of data, court denied motion to compel but ordered defendant to provide a supplemental response to plaintiff?s request after conducting less burdensome searches and encouraged cooperation to agree upon what those searches would entail; court also denied motion to compel additional searching for particular issues where defendant estimated the cost of search per gigabyte at between $100 and $300 with a total resulting cost of between $1.2 million and $3.6 million

Nature of Case: Dispute regarding proper payment pursuant to contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries