Case Summaries – Page 283 – Electronic Discovery Law

Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the burden of searching all possible locations for a mention of plaintiff was overly burdensome in light of plaintiff?s 17 year history with the company and the unlikely possibility that additional relevant information would be discovered and where plaintiff failed to identify with particularity any documents she believed to exist or category of information likely to contain relevant information, among other things, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

QuinStreet v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 1789433 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant responded to plaintiff?s requests for production by producing a link to the responsive electronically stored information and where the link appeared to be thousands of pages of raw code and the emails could not be separated from one another, court ordered re-production of the information in a reasonably readable format or for defendant to cooperate to allow conversion of the ESI by a third party, for defendant to number each email to indicate to which request it was responsive, and for a statement regarding whether production was complete

Nature of Case: Defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic damages

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Crews v. Fishburne, 2009 WL 946876 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering terminating sanctions where plaintiff (and plaintiff?s counsel) delayed production of discovery, made a ?meaningless production? of an unusable CD upon defendant?s motion to compel, redacted documents without notification to defendants and refused to produce court ordered privilege log, and refused to produce unredacted documents despite a court order

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reversing the judgment of the trial court, appellate court ordered production of public records in electronic format upon finding such production ?safe and reasonable? where there was ?no merit? in the government?s contentions that such production created the risk of alteration of records outside of the custodian?s care or that electronic production would place an overly burdensome requirement to retain original copies

Nature of Case: Public records request

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court found defendant had perjured himself, including making untrue statements about the existence of relevant evidence, had willfully disobeyed the court?s order to produce ?substantial documents,? and had knowingly and intentionally either destroyed or ordered destroyed relevant electronically stored information, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising from defendant’s breach of contract and defendant’s undereporting of revenue and underpayment of taxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tango Transp., LLC v. Transp. Int. Pool, Inc., 2009 WL 3254882 (W.D. La. Oct. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant established plaintiff?s breach of its duty to preserve emails by failing to timely issue litigation hold notices to all ?key players? but failed to establish defendants? bad faith or the relevance of the lost messages, court declined to impose adverse inference sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions, including defendant?s attorneys fees associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI

Assoc. Press v. Canterbury, 688 S.E.2d 317 (W. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that ?a personal email communication made by a public official or public employee, which does not related to the conduct of the public?s business, is not a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA,? West Virginia?s Supreme Court of Appeals reversed in part a lower court ruling compelling the production of five personal emails pursuant to West Virginia?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Nature of Case: Freedom of Information Request (FOIA)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Comrie v. Ipsco, 2009 WL 4403364 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants claimed a privileged email was inadvertently produced and thus protected from waiver but failed to support their assertion with facts, court ruled defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the disclosure was inadvertent or that they took reasonable steps to prevent such disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived; court also found that the email fell within the fiduciary exception to privilege

Nature of Case: Claims brought pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where pro se defendant failed to assert the attorney client privilege when such information was sought and ?selectively disclosed? such information despite warnings from his former counsel, court found defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel; addressing defendant?s argument that his disclosures were ?mistakes? (and thus inadvertently produced) court noted defendant?s failure to seek the return of the confidential communications, his lack of effort to ?rectify or withdraw? any of his deposition disclosures, and that the disclosures occurred following warning from counsel and therefore found that ?any argument?that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications?lacks merit.?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

Catagory:Case Summaries