Case Summaries – Page 285 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes

Plew v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 2009WL 1119414 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion to compel, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that emails sent to and from a non-party could not be protected as work product where email exchanges occurred at the behest of counsel, because of the relevant litigation, and where there was no indication that the communications were likely to be revealed to plaintiff or any other adversary of the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to timely place a litigation hold and where electronic evidence was subsequently destroyed by an automatic deletion system, court declined to impose sanctions upon plaintiff?s failure to show that the evidence destroyed was relevant to her claims

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

Commonwealth v. Lanana, 7 Pa. D. & C. 5th 225 (2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where school?s IT manager discovered child pornography on defendant?s personal computer and where upon opening those files the IT manager altered relevant metadata, appellate court upheld trial court?s denial of defendant?s motion for spoliation sanctions because the police did not commit the alleged destruction, because there was no evidence of the IT manager?s bad faith, because both parties had access to the same information, because defendant had an opportunity to explore the loss at trial and because defendant stipulated that the files were child pornography

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code

Freeman v. Comm?r of Public Safety, 2009 WL 1919931 (Min.. Ct. App. July 7, 2009) (unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant ?made a minimally sufficient showing of relevancy? by arguing that the requested source code could reveal deficiencies in the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, court found trial court?s denial of defendant?s discovery motion an abuse of discretion and reversed in part and remanded

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

Catagory:Case Summaries