Case Summaries – Page 205 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

SPM Resorts, Inc. v. Diamond Resorts Mgmt., Inc., 65 So.3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted certiorari review and quashed order for plaintiff to pay half the cost of inspection of its own computers where the court reasoned that ?[t]o place a substantial financial burden on a party relating to the production of its adversary?s discovery request does nothing more than require a party to fund its adversaries litigation? and where the order was ?unreasonable and unduly oppressive and [wa]s a departure from the essential requirements of the law.?

Nature of Case: Interference with business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Computer inspection

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

Catagory:Case Summaries