Case Summaries – Page 206 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Tummins, No. 3:10-00009, 2011 WL 2078107 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of defendant?s hard drive with all child pornography files redacted where the court determined that the likelihood that child pornography would remain on the drive after steps to redact were taken was ?relatively low? and where the government?s inspection accommodations in lieu of production did not provide the statutorily required ?ample opportunity for inspection? where the restrictions on inspection limited the time allowed for inspection and required the forensic examiner to leave his equipment unattended

Nature of Case: Criminal/ possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Pink Lotus Entm?t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-002263 HRI, 2011 WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After consideration of the four relevant factors to determine whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery and upon a determination that plaintiff had met its burden, court granted motion to allow expedited discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining indentifying information from alleged infringers? ISPs

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service providers

English v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00080-ECR-VPC, 2011 WL 3496092 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of surveillance tape where duty to preserve arose upon request for the evidence-three months after the fall occurred- and where plaintiff did not show that defendant destroyed or lost the video and photographs with ?culpable intent or in a negligent and possibly reckless manner after Defendant?s duty to preserve the evidence arose.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Miller v. Four Winds Int. Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00254-CWD, 2011 WL 5080032 (D. Idaho Oct. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff testified in deposition that she had saved relevant voice messages two years prior and that they were still available but later indicated that the messages were lost as a result of water damage to her phone and the passage of time (her service carrier indicated the messages were automatically deleted after a certain time), the court found that because she had previously indicated that the messages were available and because there was no evidence presented of when the messages became inaccessible, spoliation had occurred; court indicated an adverse inference ?may be appropriate? but withheld a final determination until it could consider the evidence offered at trial

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail

Yelton v. PHI, Inc., 2011 WL 6100445 (E.D. La. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, following a helicopter crash, defendant hired an engineer to conduct relevant analysis, and where defendant failed to place that engineer under a litigation hold, court found that relevant information was deleted and that the evidence indicated a finding of ?a significant degree of culpability? and ordered an adverse inference and that defendant pay the moving party?s reasonably costs and attorneys? fees related to the spoliation motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from helicopter crash

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to engineering analysis

Denim N. Amer. Holdings, LLC v. Swift Textiles LLC, 816 F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite noting that it was ?undisputed? that plaintiffs? witnesses did not modify their practice of ?deleting most emails within a short time of receiving them? even after they reasonably anticipated litigation, the court declined to impose an adverse inference where the record supported a finding that the witnesses ?destroyed the emails in the ordinary course of business unmotivated by any bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Bell v. Callaway Partners, LLC, 1:06-CV-1993-CC, 2011 WL 13175079 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs for expenses Defendants incurred for document scanning or imaging given that the parties agreed Defendants would produce documents in electronic format. The Court declined to allow recovery of costs for services and products other than the reproduction of documents such as Bates labeling, OCR formatting, CD creation, CD archival and PDF to TIFF Conversion stating that although such services and products assist in document review, they ?extend beyond mere copying and were unnecessary.?

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

Uhlig LLC v. Shirley, No. 6:08-cv-01208-JMC, 2011 WL 2728445 (D.S.C. July 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to modify imaging protocol and, after indicating its belief that ?the use of hash values eliminates the need for search limitations,? ordered a protocol modification that included an order for the expert to search for hash values to identify documents present on more than one specified computer/device

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer, storage devices

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Catagory:Case Summaries