Case Summaries – Page 237 – Electronic Discovery Law

Whited v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3862717 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For plaintiff?s willful and bad faith violations of the court?s orders which resulted in prejudice to the defendants, including unexplained delays in production and intentional deletion of files on computers which the court had ordered no one to use, and where the court had previously warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, court ordered dismissal of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Cross claims arising from insurance payments for home health care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Prins v. Dir. of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the trial court granted spoliation sanctions despite failing to find that the loss was intentional or in bad faith (where the officer failed to preserve the relevant video footage as the result of failing to mark the right ?checkbox? in the system) and where Missouri law requires ?evidence of intentional destruction? or ?evidence that the spoliator destroyed the evidence ?under circumstances manifesting fraud, deceit, or bad faith?, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new hearing

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage of defendant’s stop and arrest

Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena served upon Yahoo! for the production of emails from defendant?s account where the Stored Communications Act generally prohibits such disclosure absent a specifically-enumerated exception and where subpoena in a civil action is not such an exception

Nature of Case: Claims arising from prisoner’s death

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from defendant’s Yahoo! account

Rhea v. Washington Dep?t of Corr., 2010 WL 5395009 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found that defendant had failed to ask all employees with potentially relevant documents to search for and produce them, that some employees who were asked to search had not complied, and that employees who had complied failed to search for documents in all possible locations and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching and production; court granted motion to compel defendants to provide a complete answer to an interrogatory seeking detailed information on steps taken to locate responsive materials and ordered defendant to ?certify that all employees with potentially responsive documents searched all locations where such documents are typically stored in paper or electronic format?

Nature of Case: Claims that defendant refused to provide necessary medical care or accommodate plaintiff’s disability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Susquehanna Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2012, 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?

Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Does I-VII, 2010 WL 5151323 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion to conduct pre-service discovery for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Doe defendants and, upon the parties agreement, ordered that a third-party expert conduct the discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of Doe defendants

Irwin v. Onondaga County Res. Recovery Agency, 895 N.Y.S.2d 262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court modified amended order of the lower court and granted plaintiff?s petition to compel production of certain electronically stored photographs and the associated ?system? metadata in response to plaintiff?s FOIL request; court was careful to limit scope of holding to the present case such that the opinion did not address ?the issue concerning whether and when metadata of any nature is subject to disclosure under the CPLR? (Civil Practice Law Rules)

Nature of Case: Freedom of Information request

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored photographs and associated “system” metadata

In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff primarily responsible for breakdown of discovery for failing to produce requested ESI or to provide satisfactory explanation of the problems precluding production but declined to order exclusion of all evidence supporting ?diminution in value? claim where plaintiff produced substantial financial information and produced the requested ESI in hard copy, where plaintiffs violated no court order, where the failure to produce was temporally limited to two ?short periods of time?, and where plaintiffs apparent ability to produce the requested ESI would prevent any prejudice; court gave defendant option of receiving ESI on ?searchable CD? or receiving the computer on which the ESI was stored for expert examination

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data in electronic format

Catagory:Case Summaries