Case Summaries – Page 286 – Electronic Discovery Law

1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered terminating sanctions against defendant and for defendant and its defense firm to pay plaintiff?s attorney?s fees where client made repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of certain chemicals at issue and failed to disclose relevant evidence about the same and where counsel failed to provide adequate guidance regarding the need to locate and produce responsive materials and allowed defendant to make repeated misrepresentations despite significant evidence that those representations were untrue

Nature of Case: Claims of property contamination

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant produced only portions of a requested manual in an alleged effort to save expenses despite its ability to reproduce the whole manual ?almost instantaneously? by computer to compact disc, and where defendant failed to produce other easily accessible and relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice but ordered monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Systs., 2009 WL 4042898 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S.E.C. v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court approved stipulated protective order allowing defendant to waive privilege and work product protections as to certain categories of documents without also waving ?such privilege and protection regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Court Compels Discovery from Foreign Corporation Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Nov 12 2009

In re Global Power Equip. Group, Inc., 418 B.R. 833 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)

Upon a motion to compel production of documents from claimant, a foreign corporation, the court found the documents at issue to be within the control of the claimant and, applying the “comity analysis” as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, determined that the contested matter “should and shall be conducted under the Federal Rules and not under the Hague Evidence Convention.” Accordingly, the motion to compel was granted and claimant was ordered to comply with the contested discovery requests “in accordance with the Federal Rules.”

Defendants and General Counsel Sanctioned for Failure to Preserve Evidence

Nov 11 2009

Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

In April 2006, plaintiff Swofford was shot seven times, on his own property, by two deputies in pursuit of two burglary suspects. Plaintiffs brought suit against the sheriff in his official capacity and against the deputies individually. In August 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the first of two letters requesting the preservation of relevant evidence. In February 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second preservation letter and a notice of claim as required by Florida statute. Defendants did not deny receipt of these letters, but evidence was nonetheless destroyed.

Despite defendants’ receipt of the letters, no litigation holds were ever issued. Rather, the letters were forwarded to six senior employees of the Seminole Country Sherriff’s Office (“SCSO”), including named defendant Sherriff Eslinger. No preservation instructions were provided to the deputies involved in the shooting.

Supreme Court of Arizona holds Metadata is Subject to Public Records Requests

Oct 30 2009

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009)

In an en banc opinion, the Supreme Court of Arizona vacated (in part) an opinion from the Court of Appeals and held that “if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.” [Emphasis added.]

Court Imposes Strict Sanctions for Loss of Video Resulting from City’s Reckless Failure to Ensure Preservation

Oct 29 2009

Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Mont. 2009)

In this case arising from defendant’s claims that he was wrongfully arrested and that the officers used excessive force, among other things, defendant sought sanctions for the city’s failure to preserve the video of the arrest that was recorded by a camera in one of the officer’s cars. Finding that the video was lost as a result of the city’s recklessness, the court granted defendant’s motion for sanctions and “designat[ed], for purposes of the case, that the arresting officers used unreasonable force to effect the arrest of [defendant].”

Court Denies Motion to Compel Sequestration and Forensic Examination of City’s Computers and Storage Devices, Directs Parties to Cooperate to Develop a “Meaningful Discovery Plan”

Oct 28 2009

Mirbeau Geneva Lake, LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 3347101 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)

In this litigation over the attempted development of land in the City of Lake Geneva, plaintiff sought to compel production of all of defendants’ “computers and other electronic storage devices” for forensic examination. In support of the motion, plaintiff argued that defendants’ offer to produce emails in “paper form” was insufficient and that defendants were not properly preserving data for production. Noting plaintiff’s failure to make a sufficient showing in favor of such production and the parties’ failure to cooperate to reach agreement on the issues presented, the court denied plaintiff’s motion.

Catagory:Case Summaries