Case Summaries – Page 274 – Electronic Discovery Law

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate?s recommendation, district court judge denied defendant?s motion for sanctions based upon plaintiff?s alleged discovery misconduct, including spoliation and delay, where defendant ?failed to establish that its defenses have been materially prejudiced? and where plaintiff ?refuted to [magistrate?s] satisfaction the contention of defense counsel that they engaged in spoliation of material?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gillet v. MI Farm Bureau, 2009 WL 4981193 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted an ?extremely significant? number of data files from his personal computer despite notice of his obligation to preserve and was thus sanctioned by dismissal of his case, trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiff?s actions were not in good faith, particularly in light of the number of files deleted, and properly considered alternative sanctions before imposing terminating sanctions, despite the trial judge?s failure to ?expressly recite? those alternatives on the record; court?s denial of attorneys? fees/monetary sanctions was no abuse of discretion where the court ?dealt appropriately? with plaintiff?s conduct by dismissing the case and where the refusal to impose additional sanctions was ?not unreasoned or unprincipled?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2009 WL 4798117 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff neither objected to nor complied with the magistrate judge?s orders to narrow his discovery request upon the determination that plaintiff?s requests for the entire contents of his laptop and that of numerous other ?key players? was overbroad, the district court found nothing ?clearly erroneous or contrary to law? in the magistrate judge?s subsequent orders that plaintiff?s counsel be barred from taking additional depositions until the discovery requests were narrowed and for plaintiff?s counsel to pay defendants? attorney?s fees incurred for pursuing the narrowing of those requests

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

Union Ins. Co. v. Delta Casket Co. Inc., 06-2090, 2009 WL 10665127 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion that Defendants bear the costs Plaintiff incurred in producing archived emails, implicated by Defendant?s 30(b)(6) notice. The notice came after a year and a half of discovery and one month before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff was required to use a third party to conduct the search, put the retrieved emails on discs, send them to a copy service to convert to TIFF files and print them so Plaintiff?s counsel could review for relevancy and privilege. Plaintiff spent approximately $35,000 on this process. The Court held that Plaintiff?s Motion was timely and Defendants had notice before the emails were produced that Plaintiff was seeking costs, Plaintiff met its burden of showing the cost and burden incurred were undue and conversion of the discs to TIFF format was necessary in order for Plaintiff?s counsel to review the emails prior to production.

Nature of Case: Insurance indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

In re Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1211399 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered company to obtain waivers from employees allowing their personal email providers to release certain communications for production but where the email providers indicated their inability to provide those communications, court declined to order adverse inference where there was no evidence to indicate company acted in bad faith or purposefully lost or destroyed the emails

Electronic Data Involved: Email from employees’ personal accounts

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle Bank Nat?l Ass?n, 2009 WL 2243854 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff filed a motion to compel (or for sanctions) following its discovery that defendant failed to search a number of backup tapes and failed to maintain all tapes which may have contained responsive ESI, court denied the motion upon finding that burden of restoration of the tapes was ?disproportionate to the likely utility of doing so? and because LaSalle had a practice of printing and filing important emails; court also noted the parties? failure to adequately confer regarding the discovery of ESI

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Hinojos v. Park City Mun. Corp., 2009 WL 392450 (D. Utah Feb. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion for forensic examination of defendant?s employee?s hard drive for purpose of verifying creation date of relevant evidence, but, finding direct access to employee?s computer ?too risky,? court ordered mutually acceptable independent expert to image computer?s storage space and provide image to plaintiff?s forensic expert for examination of the relevant data files; Plaintiff was to bear costs

Nature of Case: Employment case

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to bear cost of non-party?s production in response to plaintiffs? subpoena where Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides for protection of a non-party from undue burden or expense and where the court found the non-party?s expenditure of $6,000 to respond ?significant?; court?s analysis also noted the parties? failure to fix production costs in advance, as discussed in the Advisory Committee Notes, and plaintiffs? awareness of the possibility that the non-party would request reimbursement

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries