Case Summaries – Page 312 – Electronic Discovery Law

Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a/ PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 5111184 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered electronically stored documents produced in native format in light of preference for such production in Rule 26 and where no obstacles to production were articulated; where plaintiff requested production of large volume of relevant documents and where deposition witness indicated that the information would be easily retrieved from defendant?s electronic database, court recognized potential burden to defendant and ordered production of sampling of documents to allow for determination of the need to produce the rest; court also ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary volume of production of documents related to cost where documents were necessary to address the accuracy of previously produced summary and thus production of all such documents was not required, where information was available in electronic format, though, defendants were ordered to produce it

Nature of Case: Predatory pricing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to file joint status report describing results of targeted search of defendant’s data backup system with respect to particular witness and stating their respective positions on issue of whether such results warranted further search of data backup system for emails authored by or addressed to other individuals

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

Electronic Data Involved: All emails relating to plaintiff or his compensation generated in past ten years by plaintiff and other Wachovia employees

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Co., 2008 WL 1838309 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Adopting the same approach as that in Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2007 WL 3121813 (Ala. Oct. 26, 2007), Alabama Supreme Court directed trial court to reconsider Vulcan?s motion for a protective order as to emails sought in light of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) and Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004) and in light of Vulcan?s arguments that the requested emails likely constitute work product and would not likely lead to relevant information

Nature of Case: Company petitioned for writ of mandamus seeking review of trial court?s order on post-trial discovery related to motion for remittitur of punitive damages awarded in underlying action for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

Displaylink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 2915390 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requested source code was relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and stipulated protective order was in place which addressed confidentiality concerns, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of source code

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology

Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced ESI as TIFF images and plaintiffs sought order compelling compliance with RFP instruction to ?produce documents in electronic form in the most accessible, searchable, maneuverable and common medium available to [defendant],? arguing that documents must be produced in native file format with metadata or in searchable OCR format, court declined to hold that 2005 Court of Chancery Rules required OCR format or native file format, including metadata, without a particularized showing of need; court found defendant?s proposal to provide searchable ?extracted text? was acceptable compromise and ordered production of ?extracted text? contingent on plaintiffs? agreement to reimburse all of defendant?s related expenses given plaintiffs? failure to timely object to non-searchable TIFF format

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Catagory:Case Summaries