Case Summaries – Page 314 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 2008 WL 877962 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued order relieving law firm of its duties as Co-Interim Class Counsel for plaintiffs, set scheduling conference and ordered parties’ attorneys to meet to discuss various issues in advance of conference, including joint proposed scheduling plan, preservation of evidence and any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced electronic files in ?MAX format? with free ?Paperport? software to assist in its review but where plaintiff then expressed preference for hard copy documents and belief that electronic documents would cost triple the amount to review, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel holding that defendants? production of files as kept in the usual course of business was sufficient; court also ruled that where plaintiff?s first request for documents did not specify production in electronic form, defendants need not reproduce hard copy documents electronically

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish custodians? possession of relevant emails beyond speculation or vague assertions, and where responding party already produced ?voluminous amounts of email,? court declined to compel production of emails from either custodian

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Ashman v. Solectron Corp., 2008 WL 5071101 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to return documents gained through illegal access to defendants’ computer system and ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ expenses related to its motion but declined to dismiss the case or preclude use of documents received in ?normal course? of discovery where policy favors resolution on the merits, where most documents would have been produced in discovery, where improper conduct was not ongoing, and where preclusion of evidence would have provided windfall advantage to defendants

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Despite court?s acknowledgment of the requested data?s relevance, plaintiff?s offer to provide a technical expert to perform the search, and plaintiff?s proffer of at least three alternative search protocols, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel a school district to search for specified terms in the databases of all its schools where court found that the proposed discovery imposed an excessive burden due to the district?s lack of technical resources and where plaintiff?s proposals failed to sufficiently lessen that burden

Nature of Case: Complaint alleges unreasonable seizure of high school student and use of excessive force resulting in permanent injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases at all school’s in district

Aecon Buildings Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Wash. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed significant monetary sanction upon finding that defendant violated both the letter and spirit of discovery rules where defendant deliberately concealed existence of electronically stored information by making repeated misrepresentations regarding completeness of production and the existence of additional information and for defendant?s failure to produce the necessary privilege log

Nature of Case: Bad faith failure to defend or indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: Notes made in electronically stored case file

Applying Evidence Rule 502 and Five Factor Test, Court Determines No Waiver

Nov 26 2008

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 216 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff Rhoads Industries, inadvertently produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents. Defendants filed a motion to deem the claim of privilege waived arguing that plaintiff’s production was careless, that its response in seeking the return of the documents was delayed, and that it failed to produce complete and accurate privilege logs as to those documents.

In February 2007, Rhoads began preparing for its anticipated litigation against Building Materials Corporation of America. Realizing the likelihood of extensive electronic discovery, Rhoads directed its IT consultant to research software to assist with the electronic discovery effort. The IT consultant eventually purchased Discovery Attender (or “Sherpa”) to perform the necessary electronic data searches. Shortly thereafter, the IT consultant and his team began work to identify locations of potentially relevant information.

Court Reverses Order Denying Sanctions and Remands Case for Reconsideration Where Plaintiff Hired Expert to “Fix” Computer but Failed to Inform Expert of Ongoing Duty to Preserve and Evidence was Destroyed

Nov 26 2008

Barnett v. Simmons, 197 P.3d 12, 2008 OK 100 (2008)

In this case, plaintiff Barnett sued defendant Rock Oil Company seeking unpaid oil royalties allegedly owed to him. Discovery in the case established that plaintiff maintained files on his computer related to his claims against Rock Oil. Accordingly, Rock Oil sought production of plaintiff’s hard drive. Plaintiff objected, but the parties attempted to reach agreement as to how to accomplish production. No agreement was reached. Rock Oil filed a motion to compel and the court granted the motion. Although the parties were then able to agree on a neutral examiner, the plaintiff dismissed his claims prior to the examination, but expressed his intent to re-file within three months.

Catagory:Case Summaries