Case Summaries – Page 280 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Hatfield, 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Addressing a number of attorney-client privilege and work product issues, the court considered whether documents stored on defendant?s company?s computer remained privileged and, noting the case-by-case nature of the assessment, considered five factors, including whether the company maintained a policy banning personal use, whether the company monitored employees? computer use or email, and how the company interpreted its own policy, and determined that defendant had not waived privilege as to documents stored on his own hard drive or that of a person with whom he maintained a joint defense agreement

Nature of Case: Criminal charges arising from alleged fraudulent schemes by CEO to defraud shareholders

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails stored on company computer

Lewis v. Ryan, 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted recommendation of the magistrate judge to impose an adverse inference and exclude certain evidence as sanction for spoliation where defendants indicated they could not locate information, including ESI, which, according to records retention requirements, should have been in their possession at the time plaintiff propounded his request and thus should have been preserved and produced; court found ?clear and convincing evidence that defendants were ?at fault? for recklessly and negligently allowing the documents to be destroyed

Nature of Case: Civil rights complaint arising from service of pork to Muslim inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, ESI

Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails or portions of emails withheld were subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel their production; court?s reasoning included discussion of the propriety of withholding email headers and held that redaction of email headers was proper where such headers provided information including: ?the topic of discussion between certain people, the identities of those people, and the time at which the discussion took place.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Search of Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., 594 F. Supp. 855 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the restrictions of a protective order preventing defendant?s access to its own electronic materials seized pursuant to a government investigation too onerous and unconstitutional in light of defendants need for access to assist in its defense, and where defendants sought only copies of the material seized such that the originals would remain preserved, court granted defendants motion to vacate or amend the protective order to allow access to the materials but indicated willingness to allow government to justify certain restrictions based on a showing of substantial need

Nature of Case: Challenge to governmental freeze on charity’s assets and seizure of documents and other tangible items pursuant to executive order

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of seized ESI

Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 WL 1212809 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where forensic examiner revealed evidence of defendants? data deletion to plaintiffs while bound by stipulated order requiring results of the examination to be reported to defendants first, but where the court found the stipulated order was focused on the discovery of actual data rather than the lack of data and that the examiner was therefore not in violation of the order, court reserved ruling on examiner?s motion for attorney?s fees stating that while the examiner?s actions did not rise to the level of contempt, they were not free from taint and that such actions ?[gave] the Court pause about granting [the examiner?s] motion

Nature of Case: Dispute over sales commissions

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Catagory:Case Summaries