Case Summaries – Page 262 – Electronic Discovery Law

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 1292977 (D. Mass. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted use of a particular computer to share copy written files but was unable to remember relevant details of the file sharing and put the question of the significance and scope of his infringement at issue, court granted plaintiffs? motion to copy and inspect defendant?s computer but ordered very strict protective order in light of defendant?s significant privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records related to file-sharing software and metadata associated with music files, including deleted files

Brookhaven Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1515661 (9th Cir. June 1, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s destruction of source code and other discovery misbehavior the district court declined to impose an adverse inference sanction upon finding that ?there was no evidence to support a finding that [defendant] acted in bad faith and had intentionally destroyed the earlier versions of the source code,? 9th Circuit declined to disturb the trial court?s decision upon finding the trial court?s decision ?not clearly erroneous?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Ashman v. Solectron Corp, 2009 WL 1684725 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered plaintiff to return documents retained improperly following termination of his employment but allowed him to utilize any such documents produced by defendant in the ?normal course of discovery? and where defendant argued that it need not produce the documents returned by plaintiff if it could not find the documents in its own system as such documents were outside the scope of ?normal? discovery, court ordered defendant to produce the non-privileged and relevant documents because they were within defendant?s ?legal possession, custody and control? and thus subject to disclosure

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thompson v. State, 210 P.3d 1233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court held audio tapes were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence and that trial court did not abuse its discretion upon finding that ?the State presented ample evidence to support the conclusion that the two recordings accurately depicted the two conversations they purported to reproduce? including testimony from victim?s mother who actually taped the conversations and the State Trooper who provided the equipment and instructions; court declined to adopt nine part traditional test for authentication and noted the ?modern approach,? i.e., ?[whether[ the proponent [of the evidence has] presented sufficient evidence to support a rational finding [that] the tape recording is authentic?

Nature of Case: Second degree sexual abuse of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found the requested electronic discovery ?not reasonably accessible? due to burden and cost and because the expense of the discovery outweighed the likely benefit and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of relevant emails where defendant stated they had already retrieved and produced all responsive emails from key individuals containing search terms proposed by plaintiff?s counsel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., 2009 WL 2868891 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite the ?clearly burdensome? process required to restore, review and produce the requested ESI, court ordered production of a specific category of ESI, where ?fairness demand[ed]? plaintiff have an opportunity to review? it, but ordered that if plaintiff continued to desire production of the remaining categories ?for which plaintiff ha[d] a lesser need, in light of all of the other discovery in this matter,? plaintiff must pay half the cost

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pulse Eng?g. Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 WL 3234177 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of redacted portions of emails where the emails were prepared in anticipation of litigation and where dissemination to third party with common legal interest did not constitute waiver pursuant to the Common Interest Doctrine (commonality of interested existed where third party was responsible for manufacturing and supplying the allegedly infringing filter)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3613511 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in support of its argument that production would be unduly burdensome, eBay provided ?uncertain? estimates of the cost that varied drastically, court held that ?without any clear indication that the costs would be unduly burdensome? the magistrate?s order to compel production was not clearly erroneous; citing Fed. R. 34 for the proposition that the civil rules contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases and case law addressing the same, court held that magistrate did not clearly err in concluding that ?the technical burden to eBay of creating a new dataset for the instant litigation does not excuse production.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of database

Catagory:Case Summaries