Case Summaries – Page 259 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Zurn Plex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 1606653 (D. Minn. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arguing the requested search of emails and various computer drives would be unduly burdensome, court dismissed attorney?s affidavit in support of such objections as ?not compelling evidence? where attorney was not ?an expert on document search and retrieval? but, ?in an effort to control costs,? limited defendants? search to particular locations and ordered the use of 14 terms as supplied by the court or agreed upon by the parties; court invited defendants to renew their objections if the search nonetheless proved overly burdensome by submitting evidence, including evidence from ?computer experts,? in support of those objections

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants’ choice of plumbing fittings caused damage to plaintiffs’ property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1851009 (Va. Ct. App. June 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting reproductions of images found on appellant?s computer at trial where the Commonwealth presented testimony from the forensic scientist and investigator responsible for making the reproductions explaining the process of reproducing the images and confirming that the reproductions accurately represented the images on defendant?s hard drive, and where defendant admitted membership in relevant websites and storing child pornography on his computer; in Virginia, the best evidence rule is limited to writings and was not applicable in this case

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Reproductions of images on defendant’s hard drive

Wolfe v. Glasgow, 2009 WL 1956687 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-party upon finding the subpoena ?overly broad on its face? where the subpoena failed to describe the documents sought with any particularity and would have essentially required the large third-party corporation ?to search its entire database of records to produce every document which refers or relates in any way to the named defendants and to [a former employee]?

Nature of Case: Discrimination in violation of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

New Salida Ditch Co, Inc. v. United Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2399933 (D. Colo. July 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant was successful in ?ascertaining with clarity whether it had any information responsive to the discovery dispute? only after months of delay and claims that it was unable to perform the requisite searches in its computer system, court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s fees and costs upon finding that defendant failed to show its behavior was ?substantially justified? or that sanctions would be ?unjust? and where plaintiff was ?the victor in the discovery dispute? and suffered prejudice by defendant?s delay, including ?unnecessary expenditure of time and expense?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Netbank Sec. Litig., 2009 WL 2461036 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered production of ESI in native format, despite defendants? objections that such production was not required by the federal rules, allowed for the alteration of documents, and prevented bates labeling, among other reasons, where defendants? problems were deemed ?hypothetical? and where plaintiff ?definitively stated? that the provision of TIFF documents both made the review more expensive and served to conceal metadata

Nature of Case: Class action securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Commonwealth v. Ruddock, 2009 WL 3400927 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Oct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Recognizing that the defendant would be ?severely handicapped? absent expert consultation and finding that requiring defendant?s expert to examine the evidence while in the commonwealth?s custody would burden defendant?s rights to effective assistance of counsel and create the risk that his work product would be accessible to the government, court ordered mirror image of defendant?s hard drive to be produced, but entered a strict protective order limiting its use and dissemination

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Oracle USA v. SAP AG, 264 F.R.D. 541 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Pursuant to the authority granted by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 16, court granted defendants? motion to preclude plaintiffs? presentation of evidence of certain damages where plaintiffs failed to timely inform defendants of their vastly expanded damages claims (despite their ability to do so) and failed to timely supplement their initial disclosures accordingly, and where such expansion would prejudice the defendants in light of the volume of information to be analyzed and the attendant cost; court?s analysis relied in part upon the extensive discovery that had already been undertaken

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Evidence of expanded damages claims

In re Nuvaring Prod. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 2486330 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for cost sharing for their review and production of electronically stored information where the parties had implicitly agreed to be responsible for their own expenses, where plaintiffs already took steps to eliminate the cost to defendants of repeatedly producing documents, and where defendants failed to establish that plaintiffs? request had caused undue burden or expense or that they would in future; court instructed defendants to file motions for protective orders specifically identifying the requests creating the burden and expense to allow the court to address the objections

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Donnelly v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 5551377 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to produce a list of all persons it called on cellular telephones within particular area codes, despite defendant?s claim that such production would be unduly burdensome and minimally probative and that it would need to create special programs to extract the information which would take ?several hundred hours,? where court determined plaintiff?s need for the information outweighed the burden in producing it

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries