Case Summaries – Page 205 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-118, No. C 11-01567 LB, 2011 WL 1431612 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff demonstrated that (1) the Doe defendants are real people who may be sued in federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the Doe defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its infringement and civil conspiracy claims against the Doe defendants could survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of the proposed subpoenas on the ISPs will lead to information identifying the Doe defendants, court granted motion for expedited discovery to allow plaintiffs to serve subpoenas seeking information to identify the unknown plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to identity of Does 1-118

Liberty Media Holding, LLC v. Swarm of November 16, 2010 Sharing Hash File A3E6F65F2E3D672400A5908F64ED55B66A088B8, No. 11cv619 (BLM), 2011 WL 1597495 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve subpoenas on identified ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Does 1-95 granted

Nature of Case: Coyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subsribers

Kermode v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., No. 3:09-CV-584-DPJ-FKB, 2011 WL 2619096 (S.D. Miss. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly spoliated emails and where, if the emails had existed, they would have been automatically deleted prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve and thus would not have been lost in bad faith; court?s analysis included discussion of trigger of duty to preserve and reasoned that meetings between accused professor and his department head and/or program director regarding alleged unwanted interactions with student did not trigger university?s duty to preserve because there was no evidence to suggest that either the department head or program director should have reasonably anticipated litigation at that time (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 for proposition that ?Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm wide duty to-preserve.?)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Kosher Sports Inc. v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, No. 10-CV-2618 (JBW), 2011 WL 3471508 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Commonwealth Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Smith, No. 3435 EDA 2009, 2011 WL 489704 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s exclusion of electronic business records obtained by the plaintiff from the former holders of defendant?s debt, where the trial court properly concluded that the a representative of the plaintiff corporation was not ?the right person to establish the Citibank records? (because he was not familiar with how the records were created or maintained and had no personal knowledge of the entries on the at-issue spreadsheet, for example) and held that ?CPS failed to establish the trustworthiness and reliability of the records sufficiently to permit their admission into evidence? pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(6), among other things

Nature of Case: Action to collect credit card debt

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where ?severe spoliation sanctions, such as an adverse inference instruction, are only appropriate upon a showing of bad faith,? the circuit court affirmed the lower court?s denial of plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that the accused party intentionally destroyed the relevant video tape ?or acted with bad faith or gross negligence in respect to it?

Nature of Case: False arrest, defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317 BRW/JTR, 2011 WL 2115546 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing discovery issues ?looming on the horizon? court indicated that there appeared to be no basis to require defendant to forensically image at-issue hard drives and, addressing whether defendant would be required to restore and review backup tapes which it claimed could cost $84,854,704. 90 (a number the court called ?absurdly high? on its face), found that it would be difficult for plaintiff to meet the seven factor test for good cause and that defendant had sufficiently objected to plaintiff?s request such that arguments that the backup tapes were not reasonably accessible had not been waived

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, backup tapes

Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Techs., LLC, No. 07-1121-EFM, 2011 WL 3849724 (D. Kan. Aug. 30. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was required to scan electronically produced documents ?using OCR to convert them into a searchable format to make them useable? and argued that such conversion was ?reasonably necessary? and the modern equivalent of ?fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case,? the court agreed and allowed the costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries