Case Summaries – Page 323 – Electronic Discovery Law

Court Sets Protocol for Production of ESI by Non-Party Individual

Dec 03 2007

In re Rule 45 Subpoena Issued to Robert K. Kochan, 2007 WL 4208555 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2007)

In this decision, the district court adopted the Memorandum and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Gates which resolved a dispute centered around a subpoena issued in a case pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. Plaintiffs in that case sued Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp. ("FAEC") and others for alleged fraud related to investigation of plaintiffs’ insurance claims for damages caused by Hurricane Katrina.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum to nonparty Robert K. Kochan, a Virginia resident and the president of FAEC. The subpoena directed Mr. Kochan to produce for inspection and copying the following information:

1. As related or pertaining to Hurricane Katrina, to produce and permit inspection and copying through drive imaging, all electronically stored information created, stored or maintained on or after August 29, 2005, on any laptop computer ever utilized by Adam Sammis in the state of Mississippi at any time on or after August 29, 2005. This request applies but is not limited to the laptop computer(s) utilized by Adam Sammis while working in the mobile R/V office Forensic Analysis & Engineering deployed to the Mississippi Gulf Coast before, on or after September 26, 2005; and

Sanctions Warranted for Failure to Comply with Court’s Production Order and Failure to Implement Litigation Hold

Dec 01 2007

Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb. v. BASF Corp., 2007 WL 3342423 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007)

In this patent and licensing litigation, the court had previously ordered plaintiff to produce “development documents” related to the project at issue in the litigation. According to defendant, plaintiff produced 1,737 pages of documents by the order’s deadline in February 2006, but then later produced more than 11,000 pages of new responsive documents in the final days of discovery in the fall of 2007. Defendant argued that these late-produced documents fell squarely within the ambit of the court’s order and should have been produced 18 months earlier. Defendant also argued that plaintiff had failed to meet its preservation obligations.

At his deposition, one of the key players employed by plaintiff testified that he was not specifically directed by plaintiff’s counsel to search for electronically stored documents; he was asked to produce “all documents” related to his research, and he produced only hard copy documents without examining his electronic files. In addition, the witness stated that during 2005 the University changed the storage system for the archiving of electronically produced information, from a University-wide archiving system to a more localized, “individual computer” storage system. As part of that process the witness reviewed his computer-stored information and preserved what he deemed was important. Conversely, of course, and without guidance, he deleted what he viewed as unimportant. He testified that, in that process, neither the University nor counsel directed that electronically stored information pertaining to the relevant project be preserved in any form. Further, the University’s computer system was such that some emails would be automatically deleted “at some point” if not preserved.

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District judge modified magistrate’s December 4, 2006 sanctions order, allowing Dell to use the 57 disputed documents at trial since it concluded that Dell had provided the documents in a way that fulfilled all of its discovery obligations and DE had not moved to compel production of the documents in a different format

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

United States ex rel. Miller v. Holzmann, 2007 WL 781941 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court judge adopted magistrate judge’s January 17, 2007 report and recommendation, overruling objections of the parties

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy file

Palgut v. City Of Colo. Springs, 2007 WL 1238730 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that defendant’s failure to identify certain backup tapes in its initial disclosures was inadvertent and was not intentional, willful, or wanton, court ruled that defendant need not produce such backup tapes because production would be unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information; court further found that inadvertent disclosures of protected work product by each of the parties did not effect waiver and prohibited defendant from using or referring to any ?embedded data? contained in plaintiff?s discovery requests and responses

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes and embedded data

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2007 WL 1932917 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where moving party did not proffer ?a scintilla of evidence? that allegedly missing emails ever existed in the first place but simply speculated that they may have existed, and even assuming arguendo that such emails did exist, moving party could not establish any of the three required elements of spoliation, i.e., 1) that the party with control over the evidence had a duty to preserve it when it was lost or destroyed; 2) that the evidence was lost or destroyed with a ?culpable state of mind?; and 3) that the evidence was relevant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and violation of the New York State Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 2209250 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce certain documents related to forensic examinations of former employee’s computers, including electronic documents or portions thereof retrieved from the computers, and all related “fact” work product since substantial need had been demonstrated; court further ordered plaintiff’s IT employee to answer questions regarding forensic examinations at deposition, finding inadequate plaintiff’s proposal that witness respond to unanswered questions through an errata sheet since LMC’s counsel instructed witness not to testify on broad areas of inquiry and counsel was unable to fully develop lines of questioning

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Results of forensic computer analysis

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2007 WL 4171627 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Commenting on various discovery disputes that were unripe for decision, court stated that it agreed that, to the extent plaintiff requested production of entire hard drives from the computers of persons involved in the decision-making process, that the request was ?much too broad,? and stated: ?The Court relies upon litigants to identify responsive documents, wherever they may be located, and to produce them. If, through deposition or otherwise, Mr. Moore learns that searches for documents have been less then thorough and that there may be additional documents located on hard drives or at other places within Abbott’s system, he should first request that an additional search be undertaken. If that produces no documents, he may take discovery on the details of any additional search. If he is dissatisfied with that process, he may apply to the Court for additional relief.?

Nature of Case: Age discrimination in rehiring process

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of key players

Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Catagory:Case Summaries