Case Summaries – Page 217 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Prosecution Not Required to Re-Produce Voluminous ESI in Categorized Batches

Nov 23 2011

United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., No. 09 Cr. 1058, 2011 WL 5448066 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2011)

In this case, defendants were charged with crimes “arising out of an alleged conspiracy . . . to illegally rig bids, fix prices, and manipulate the market for investment instruments known as municipal derivatives.” Following the prosecution’s production of ESI, defendants sought to compel re-production in categorized batches relating to transactions with certain characteristics. Defendants’ motion was denied.

Client & Counsel Sanctioned for Spoliation where Plaintiff was Instructed to “Clean Up” His Facebook Page

Nov 18 2011

Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL.08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Sept. 1, 2011); Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011)

In this case, significant monetary sanctions were ordered against the plaintiff and his counsel for egregious discovery violations, including intentional deletion of pictures on Plaintiff’s Facebook page per the instructions of Counsel and subsequent efforts to cover those instructions up, among others.

California Federal Court Grants Motion to Adopt Version of Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases Promulgated by Federal Circuit

Nov 10 2011

DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, 2011 WL 5244356 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

In this patent case, Defendant sought an order adopting a modified version of the Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases (“Model Order”) recently promulgated by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit (available here). Significantly, the Model Order limits the discovery of email by placing limitations on the allowable number of custodians and search terms. According to the court, such limitations “are designed to address the imbalance of benefit and burden resulting from email production in most cases.” The order proposed by the Defendant similarly limited the discovery of email.

Court Denies Motion to Re-Tax Costs Related to Conversion of ESI, Including Costs for “Project Management”

Nov 02 2011

Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., No. 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), 2011 WL 4835742 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)

Here, the court denied Plaintiff’s “motion to stay, deny, or re-tax the Clerk’s taxation of costs awarded to Defendants.” Specifically, the court declined to deny or re-tax costs awarded for converting data to the .TIFF format or to deny or re-tax costs related to a project manager who “oversaw the process of converting data to the .TIFF format to prevent inconsistent or duplicative processing.” Regarding the latter, the court reasoned that “[b]ecause the project manager’s duties were limited to the physical production of data, the related costs are recoverable.”

Court Acknowledges Calls for Caution when Applying “Proportionality Test” to Preservation, Denies Motion for Protective Order

Oct 21 2011

Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 0377 (CM)(JLC), 2011 WL 4701849 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011)

KPMG sought a protective order to limit the scope of its preservation obligation or to shift a portion of its preservation costs to plaintiffs. At the time, the parties awaited ruling on plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify and KPMG was preserving more than 2,500 hard drives at a cost of more than $1,500,000. Following the court’s analysis, the motion was denied.

Catagory:Case Summaries