Case Summaries – Page 211 – Electronic Discovery Law

Felman Prod., Inc. v. Indus. Risk. Insurers, No. 3:09-0481, 2011 WL 4547012 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For egregious discovery violations, including attempting to conceal relevant custodians, failure to issue litigation holds, spoliation, delay, and lack of candor, the court granted in part defendants? motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed plaintiff?s claim for business interruption losses?the claim most affected by the discovery abuse; court declined to dismiss all claims where, despite the discovery violations, defendants? were not sufficiently prejudiced to support terminating sanctions, but found an adverse inference instruction to be ?an adequate remedy?

Nature of Case: Complaint seeking payment of insurance claims; counterclaim for fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melendres v. Arpaio, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 6740709 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and imposed permissive adverse inferences as to two categories of information which the court found had been intentionally shredded and/or deleted despite a duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Civil rights class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

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

Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-30, No. 2:11cv345, 2011 WL 2634166 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP

Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant evidence despite two court orders and then wrongly certified that the production was complete, the district court granted defendant?s motion to dismiss; on appeal, the circuit court affirmed the sanction (in a colorful opinion full of quotable quotes), holding that ?no one . . . should count on more than three chances to make good on a discovery obligation? and that the district court was within its considerable discretion in granting dismissal

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Tax records

Tener v. Cremer, 931 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing the obligation of a non-party to produce ESI that was deleted through ?normal business operations?, the court found that the Naussau Guidelines provided the best approach to determine the third party?s obligation to produce allegedly inaccessible data where the guidelines called for a cost/benefit analysis involving the difficulty of the production at issue; court found plaintiff had shown ?good cause? for needing the requested ESI but that there was insufficient evidence of the non-party?s alleged burden of production (including, for example, whether the at-issue ESI had actually been deleted, whether it could actually be retrieved, the cost of such retrieval, etc.) and thus remanded the case to the Supreme Court for ?a hearing on whether the information plaintiff seeks is ?inaccessible? and hence whether [the non-party] has the ability to comply with the subpoena; the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court?s ruling holding the non-party in contempt for failure to comply with a judicial subpoena

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of all persons who accessed the internet using a certain computer or internet portal on a certain day

Catagory:Case Summaries