Case Summaries – Page 284 – Electronic Discovery Law

Unishippers Global Logistics, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2009 WL 3297817 (D. Utah Oct. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant refused to search custodians? user files, network drives, and individual hard drives for responsive ESI but agreed to search custodians? emails and ?all electronic files that are known to contain non-duplicative information? and where defendant provided plaintiff with affidavit evidence of the unlikelihood of discovering relevant non-duplicative evidence in non-email sources, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?unless and until? plaintiff could provide ?some reasonable basis? to require defendant to image and search all electronic files

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Non-email ESI

Blangsted v. Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Prot. Dist., 2009 WL 2407655 (Aug. 5, 2009

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought dismissal or a new trial based upon plaintiff?s loss of an audiotape of the meeting in which he was terminated, court declined to grant the requested sanctions upon finding that no litigation was pending at the time of the loss, that any prejudice to defendants was small, that plaintiff?s degree of culpability was small and where there was no evidence of bad faith; court nonetheless indicated its willingness to consider the loss in any claims for fees or costs citing plaintiff?s failure to disclose the existence and loss of the tape which resulted in expenses to defendants to settle the dispute

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 4069279 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where upon the court?s order to produced any privileged documents not properly and timely logged plaintiff produced only certain documents and redacted others, and where plaintiff explained that the withheld and redacted documents were duplicates of documents previously determined to be privileged by the court, court denied defendant?s motion to compel and stated: ?Where a written communication is found to be protected by the attorney-client privilege, an identical copy of that document, when challenged, ought to yield the same result, despite a different indexing number for the copy. To treat identical copies of the same document differently based solely on the numerical designation in a data log elevates form over substance in the worst way.?

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

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged materials

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Silverstein v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2009 WL 4949959 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendants waived claims of privilege as to specific memorandum where, despite initially identifying the memorandum as privileged and placing it on the privilege log, defendants subsequently produced the memorandum and, upon realizing their mistake, failed to properly and timely re-assert the privilege or to take reasonable steps ?rectify the erroneous disclosure?; waiver was intentional where defendant failed for nearly 11 months to clarify the status of the document following its production despite a ready ability to do so and, where plaintiff was prejudiced as a result, court found ?fairness dictat[ed]? that plaintiff be allowed to proceed with discovery and that ?to the extent questions and documents ?concern the same subject matter? as that disclosed in the [memorandum], ?they ought in fairness to be considered together.??

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege memorandum

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants could not produce a requested email because of damage to author?s and recipient?s computers but where defendants undertook significant effort to search for the email, including a search by the county?s Information Technology Director and inquiry to the County?s email provider about the email?s availability, and where defendant offered to make the author?s computer available for inspection at plaintiff?s expense, court declined plaintiff?s request to ?shift the cost of an independent computer expert? to defendants and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the email

Electronic Data Involved: Email

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape

Catagory:Case Summaries