Case Summaries – Page 314 – Electronic Discovery Law

Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced significant number of requested documents and ESI ?on a rolling basis? but production was still not complete four months past original deadline and defendant claimed its vendor had just provided another 179,180 ESI documents, court struck compromise between respective deadlines urged by parties (August 15 and June 30, 2008) and ordered defendant to complete its production on or before July 23, 2008; court also issued stern warning that it would not hesitate to impose sanctions in the future for any discovery abuses

Nature of Case: Antitrust and unfair competition claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where party initially told government he did not have certain computers used in various businesses discussed in complaint, then revealed that he possessed the computers but objected to providing them to government, and then admitted having removed hard drives and hiring third party to create a mirror images, court ruled that government was not bound to accept mirror image made by third party and ordered party to produce computers to government for inspection; court further ordered government to promptly create mirror image of hard drives and return computers promptly to party

Nature of Case: Forfeiture action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of certain computers used in the transactions alleged in the complaint

Law Offices of Ben C. Martin LLP v. Sweet, 2008 WL 2045477 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neutral expert could not testify, based on forensic search of Sweet?s computer, that Sweet or someone at his direction had intentionally destroyed subject email, and it appeared that most of expert?s report went beyond scope of his duties as neutral expert and was irrelevant to any issues in case, magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions be denied and that certain portions of expert?s report be stricken; Report and Recommendation adopted by district court, 2008 WL 2130574 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008)

Nature of Case: Dispute over fee owed to Martin and his firm as a result of settlement and verdict in medical malpractice case

Electronic Data Involved: Email sent by Martin via his Blackberry to Sweet confirming the terms of fee arrangement

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, 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

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