Case Summaries – Page 353 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and to produce all documents by certain date; court further ordered defendant to certify, in writing, that it had performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff’s document requests

Nature of Case: False Claim Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Jacobson v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2006 WL 3146349 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions, ordered defendant to submit to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding its efforts to locate and produce responsive documents, and ordered defendant to produce key player’s computer for inspection by plaintiff, where evidence showed that the home and/or work computers of a key player and several witnesses had not been searched for responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive; computerized records

Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to providing hard copies of payment data and offered instead to make its database available to plaintiff in New York, court questioned prudence of offer and ordered production to take place in Houston, adding that parties should attempt to arrange for materials to be produced electronically and directing them to confer on method of production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Raytheon Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 2006 WL 2570545 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied as overly broad plaintiff’s request that government identify and produce all investigations and electronic databases concerning contamination at World War II Army Air Force bases, and instead ordered government to, at plaintiff’s indicated preference, either provide an index to the electronic databases or provide a knowledgeable member of its staff to assist plaintiff in its review of the databases

Nature of Case: CERCLA litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had originally asserted work product protection regarding videotape recording of insured’s funeral, but failed to adequately explain the circumstances which led to his statements that the video existed or the circumstances surrounding his claimed discovery that no such video existed, court ordered plaintiff to produce video or explain in detail any reasons for non-production

Nature of Case: Beneficiary sued insurer to recover death benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape recording of funeral

Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defense counsel withdrew defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to inspect, at its expense, defendants’ computers, court denied as moot plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendants’ Computers, Other Electric Equipment and Electronic Storage Devices and ordered the parties to include a stipulated plan for electronic discovery in their Case Management Report

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, deceptive and unfair business practice, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ computers

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006 WL 1343597 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding good cause and no First Amendment prohibition, court granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery and serve Rule 45 subpoena upon ISP to obtain names and contact information for Doe Defendants; ISP to serve copy of subpoena and court?s order upon relevant subscribers and subscribers would have 15 days to file any objections; if no objections filed, ISP would have 10 days to produce each subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control (?MAC?) addresses

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Catagory:Case Summaries