Case Summaries – Page 200 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mgmt. Compensation Group Lee, Inc. v. Oklahoma State Univ., No. CIV-11-967-D, 2011 WL 5326262 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where non-party OSU represented that responding to a subpoena seeking 6571 documents would require an expenditure of $1,761.24 and 55 hours of in-house counsel?s time, court found the burden was not so undue as to require protection from compliance and, in so finding, noted OSU?s financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, OSU?s close ties to a party in the case, and the amount in controversy of the underlying litigation (many millions of dollars)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Gravely, 2011 WL 112468 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Bureau of Prison?s failure to preserve video footage of hallway outside cell in which the alleged murder of an inmate occurred did not violate the defendant?s constitutional rights where the defendant failed to establish that the footage was materially exculpatory and where the court found the failure to preserve was grossly negligent but not in bad faith

Nature of Case: Defendant charged with murdering another inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Lowy v. Peacehealth, 247 P.3d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court reinstated original order compelling defendants? to search its quality assurance database for records pertaining to incidents similar to plaintiff?s and denied defendants? motion for a protective order where RCW 70.41.2003 prevents defendants? from allowing a review of such records by ?outside persons? but where an internal review for the purpose of identifying responsive records would not be in violation of the statute

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to claims similar to plaintiff’s

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 10-20881-CIV, 2011 WL 1548969 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where 3rd party established the burden of responding to defendant?s subpoena, including that compliance would result in a total cost of approximately $118,000, the court ordered defendant to bear the reasonable cost of the 3rd party?s compliance with the subpoena, subject to the conditions set forth by the court

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 274 F.R.D. 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendants? discovery abuses, including spoliation or withholding of audio tapes of wiretapped conversations despite a court order to produce them; destruction of relevant hard drives and refusal to authorize release of copies of those drives from a third-party; and failure to produce other relevant evidence, court found that plaintiff had been prejudiced and ordered default sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fraudulent scheme to recover insurance reimbursements

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, hard drives

Jacobeit v. Rich Township H.S. Dist. 227, No. 09 CV 1924, 2011 WL 2039588 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s delayed production of certain relevant documents, including emails, court granted plaintiff permission to re-depose certain witnesses but denied his request for evidentiary and exclusionary sanctions; court found defendant had breached its duty to preserve when it destroyed an audio tape of school board meeting pursuant to the District?s normal retention policy but that culpability and prejudice were not significant and ordered that plaintiff be allowed to question a certain deponent regarding the meeting, but no other sanctions; court found defendants breached duty of preservation as to certain emails, but that prejudice was minimal, and declined to allow forensic examination of the District?s computers, but ordered that defendants bear the reasonable costs of plaintiff?s motion and reply

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, audio tape of board meeting

Greene v. Netsmart Techs., No. CV 08-4971(TCP)(AKT), 2011 WL 2225004 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where there was a delay in plaintiff?s production of relevant evidence and where handwritten notes and certain audio tapes were negligently destroyed but where no unique evidence was ultimately lost because the information was transferred to another source before its destruction, court declined to dismiss the case or to impose an adverse inference but, noting that there was ?clearly a breakdown in communication between Plaintiff and his counsel regarding document preservation and collection,? imposed monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s expenses related to efforts to obtain the relevant evidence, to be shared 50/50 by plaintiff and his counsel; Recommendation adopted by the District Court: 2011 WL 2193399

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Tapes, handwritten notes

Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09cv1436-BEN (WMc), 2011 WL 2728217 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where target indicated the requested discovery would require the expenditure of approximately 146 hours of employees? time and cost $4,360 and also argued that the requested discovery would invade employees? privacy and was minimally relevant, court found that the burden to Target did not outweigh the likely benefit, rejected defendant?s arguments regarding privacy and relevance, and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Andrew, No. 10 Civ. 947 (WHP)(HBP), 276 F.R.D. 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Undertaking the appropriate comity analysis and finding that only two of seven factors weighed in favor of plaintiffs and that every other favor weighed in favor of the non-party banks, court denied motion to compel production of banking records of non-party Chinese banks

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Banking records

Orillaneda v. French Culinary Inst., No. 07 Civ. 3206(RJH)(HBP), 2011 WL 4375365 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s request for information related to defendant?s internal search procedures and information systems did not seek relevant information and that plaintiff had not indentified facts that suggested defendant?s document production was deficient and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order stating, ?Discovery concerning these areas may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but it is not appropriate in this case unless and until plaintiff makes a specific showing that defendant?s production is deficient.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to defendant?s internal search procedures and information systems

Catagory:Case Summaries