Case Summaries – Page 313 – Electronic Discovery Law

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re County of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Petition for Mandamus granted and order to produce privileged emails vacated where appellate court found that defendants? claim of attorney-client privilege had not been waived because defendants had not claimed reliance upon privileged advice as a defense and thus had had not put the advice ?at issue?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging constitutionality of strip- search policy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. v. Metro. Employment Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 5156609 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to order preliminary injunction requiring defendants to image hard drives for production and to produce copies of all electronic files related to the action where plaintiff alleged that defendants destroyed ESI on plaintiff?s server but did not state who deleted it or how, and where plaintiff failed to show the information was not available elsewhere or that ample protection was not provided by the preservation obligations under the Federal Rules or the rules of the American Arbitration Association

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may provide guidance in criminal cases in determining whether format of production by government was appropriate, and if ESI is demanded in criminal case, but request does not specify a form of production, responding party must produce ESI in form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in reasonably usable form or forms

Nature of Case: Criminal case against State Department employee for receiving, quid pro quo, gifts and other benefits for expediting visa requests

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and electronic files

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where source code had probative value and would be covered by protective order, court ordered defendant to produce it and suggested that parties coordinate to limit its disclosure to only specified experts and individuals at Metavante with requisite technical expertise needed to effectively evaluate the source code

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Yeisley v. PA State Police, 2008 WL 906465 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based on non-production of email, court ordered defendants to promptly undertake requisite search of electronic records and warned: ?To the extent that electronic records may have been lost during the pendency of this litigation as a result of the failure to conduct an adequate search of this font of information prior to this time, sanctions may be appropriate.?

Nature of Case: Civil rights litigation

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

Catagory:Case Summaries