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.

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff withheld and destroyed relevant documents and committed other egregious discovery abuse, but other factors weighed against dismissal, court concluded that less extreme sanctions were appropriate and precluded plaintiff from presenting certain arguments at trial and from seeking damages related to the termination of his employment

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sued publisher alleging breach of a promise to keep his name and employer confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Email

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had previously denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that defendant had made the showing, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), that email sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or costs,” and because plaintiff had not shown good cause to justify the expense of the proposed discovery, court denied subsequent motion to compel defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee to provide testimony on how email production cost estimate was determined

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it ?difficult to imagine? that defendant did not possess any responsive electronic or paper documents, plaintiff submitted no information upon which to question defendant?s representation and court had no basis to compel production; court instead required defendant to supplement discovery responses unconditionally representing that no responsive documents were in its possession, custody or control

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records identifying vacant positions at GM plant

Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced no evidence or description of its attempt to engage in a “reasonable inquiry” under FRCP 26 to discover and produce the requested information, other than the general observation that finding the information would be difficult, and where issue of numerosity was important issue for class certification, court ordered defendant to produce information and if it failed to immediately undertake good faith effort to do so, court would allow plaintiff and his counsel ?to inspect in a reasonable manner the Defendant’s files and records, including electronically stored information, on these issues?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding number of individuals who received particular letter from defendant collection agency

RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3112417 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s untimely motion to re-open discovery and to compel compliance with court?s ?Default Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents? since plaintiff did not raise or discuss issue of e-discovery during initial conferences nor provide a compelling reason to re-open discovery other than its perceived lack of a significant amount of emails

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries