Case Summaries – Page 207 – Electronic Discovery Law

Graff v. Haverhill N. Coke Co., No. 1:09-cv-670, 2011 WL 1630045 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, by comparing the time taken to respond to other requests, defendant established that responding to the requests at issue would be unduly burdensome (requiring an estimated 1,000 to 1,600 hours) and where plaintiff failed to provide ?any particular showing ? of the benefit to be obtained from such information?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Benefitvision, Inc. v. Gentiva Health Servs., Inc., No. CV 09-473(DRH)(AKT), 2011 WL 3796324 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-privileged portions of email chains be produced with privileged portions redacted and properly logged; court addressed formatting and substantive issues with defendants? privilege log and ordered defendants to edit their log to remove the unnecessary data that was exported into the log from the documents database (e.g., dashes, arrows, etc.) to facilitate ease of use and to amend their descriptions to provide information sufficient to analyze the viability of the privilege claim

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. v. Does 1-59, 2011 WL 292128 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for leave to take immediate discovery to obtain information sufficient to identify Does 1-59 (by serving subpoenas upon their internet service providers and cable providers) was granted where plaintiff identified the missing parties with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine that the parties could be sued in federal court, where there were no other means by which plaintiff could obtain the information sought, and where plaintiff?s action could withstand a motion to dismiss

Nature of Case: Unlawful access to stored communications and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Name of subscriber

Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Commc?n, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for alleged spoliation of one email where plaintiff failed to establish that the ?destruction of the email was anything but inadvertent or that any other email was deleted? or that the email constituted relevant evidence favorable to the defendants; court?s opinion indicated that defendants? use of oral instruction to preserve evidence was acceptable; court denied motion for sanctions related to defendants? failure to preserve and produce all runtime environments for allegedly infringing software program where defendants took efforts to preserve similar evidence with the belief that such preservation was sufficient and thus did not have a sufficiently capable state of mind to establish spoliation and where plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the allegedly spoliated evidence to its claims

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer files related to development of allegedly infringing software

Bower v. Bower, No. 10-10405-NG, 2011 WL 3702086 (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Yahoo! and Google to produce emails in violation of Stored Communications Act and declined to rely upon defendant?s ?status as a fugitive? to find that she was deemed to have given consent or to issue an order requiring consent which, if defied, would allow the implication that consent had been given where the court reasoned that ?there is nothing in [defendant?s] actions from which this court can imply an intent to consent to the disclosure of her information

Nature of Case: Child abduction

Electronic Data Involved: Web-based email

AMG Nat?l Trust Bank v. Ries, No. 06-CV-3061, 2011 WL 2912874 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s deletion of relevant computer files and ordered an adverse inference and payment of plaintiff?s attorney?s costs and fees but, because the extent of the prejudice could not be determined, indicated that the language of the inference would be withheld until defendant paid for a forensic examination of his computer to determine what, if any, evidence could be recovered and thus the extent of the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. JFS Dev., Inc., No. C09-0175, 2011 WL 4499259 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs alleged that examination of defendant?s laptop and other storage devices revealed evidence of spoliation and filed a motion for default judgment, the court reasoned that the evidence did not support a finding of intentional spoliation or bad faith, that the risk of prejudice to plaintiffs was small, that there was plenty of information for plaintiffs to utilize to pursue their claims, that public policy favored disposition on the merits, and that a less drastic sanction was available (namely a possible adverse inference instruction), and denied plaintiffs? motion; the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge was adopted by the District Court 2011 WL 5975127

Nature of Case: Claim for damages arising from property development

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. AT&T, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01560, 2011 WL 5347178 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)

Nature of Case: DOJ investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10-cv-00317-SWW, 2011 WL 6829625 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 16, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4), court awarded the prevailing party $11,675.00 ?for the technical, specialized services necessary for responses to B&B?s request for electronically stored information? noting that B&B?s requests required defendant to extract 150 gigabytes of raw data for ten custodians which required additional processing and review and concluding that? [g]iven the extensive e-discovery that Fastenal was required to conduct, the Court in these circumstances finds that allowing a prevailing party to recover the costs of providing ESI where the opposing party requested that responsive documents be produced in certain electronic formats is appropriate.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gerlich v. United Stated Dept. of Justice, 828 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D.D.C. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Plaintiff argued that Department of Justice had destroyed records in violation of Federal Records Act but court clarified that Federal Records Act rather requires agencies to decide which materials must be preserved and reasoned that where DOJ decided not to require preservation of notes related to employment candidates and thus such information was destroyed, no spoliation could be found where the destruction was in accordance with policy and occurred prior to initiation of the relevant investigation and the subsequent lawsuit

Nature of Case: Claims alleging wrongful employment decisions based on political affiliation

Electronic Data Involved: Notes taken regarding applicants

Catagory:Case Summaries