Case Summaries – Page 57 – Electronic Discovery Law

TetraVue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 14cv2021-W (BLM), 2017 WL 1008788 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce additional documents, supplement discovery responses, and remove non-responsive documents from their production. Plaintiff had not been able to obtain the entire underlying action file from former counsel, and argued they do not have actual control over the documents. The court found Plaintiffs did have ?possession, custody or control? of the file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (even though counsel had not been cooperative in turning the materials over) and granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of additional non-privileged and responsive documents. Plaintiffs were ordered to obtain the file and provide supplemental responses to Defendant?s RFPs. Defendant asserted Plaintiff?s previous production was a ?data dump? without an index (and contained numerous non-responsive documents), and did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant did not request a specific format and that they complied with the discovery order and produced their ESI in a proper format (PDF). Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant?s request to have Plaintiff organize their production based on RFPs would be disproportionate – the production was in date order, allowing Defendant to ?organize, index and search the data at a low cost and with little effort.? The court agreed, finding the production adequate and cited the advisory committee?s notes for Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (?contemplated that the parties requesting ESI would be able to organize it themselves?). Finally, the court denied Defendant?s motion for supplemented interrogatory responses, finding the Plaintiffs? responses adequate (the burden of finding the answer would be ?substantially the same for either party?).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rutledge-Plummer v. SCO Family of Servs., No. 15-CV-2468 (MKB) (SMG), 2017 WL 570765 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiff also sought production of all emails between 8 named individuals dating from August 1, 2013 to the present (December 2016). The court found the scope of this request (lacking any search terms or subject matter restrictions) was too burdensome when weighed against the potential benefit of production. Plaintiff narrowed her request to docs that related to her and limited the date range during oral argument, however the court found that this was still too broad and too close to the close of discovery to be permitted. Furthermore, Defendant had already produced emails relating to Plaintiff from most of the 8 custodians and had written to Plaintiff suggesting she propose search terms if she sought additional discovery. Plaintiff?s counsel, whose representation started after Defendant?s letter to Plaintiff, did not review Defendant?s earlier discovery responses and waited 10 months before requesting the additional discovery (using the overbroad parameters). The court denied Plaintiffs request except for certain documents referenced in depositions that were not produced. The court also denied Plaintiffs overly broad request for ?all documents pertaining to policies, procedures, and guidelines related to Defendant?s computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media? as too burdensome.

Nature of Case: Motion to Compel in employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Barry v. Big M Transp. Inc., No 1:16-cv-00167-JEO, 2017 WL 3980549 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court found Defendant?s failure to preserve a vehicle?s Electronic Control Module (ECM) data after it was aware of a severe accident, contrary to the Defendant?s ?normal practice,? constituted spoliation. Court denied Plaintiffs? motion for a negative inference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (e) as the Plaintiffs were able to reconstruct the accident and vehicle?s speed from other sources and that the failure to preserve was not intentional based on the defendants? plausible, though erroneous, understanding that the data was overridden by the removal of the damaged vehicle from the scene. Court found a jury instruction that ECM data was not preserved and allowing both parties to present evidence and argument at trial regarding defendant?s failure to preserve the data to be a sufficiently effective sanction.

Nature of Case: Personal injury (auto accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Control Module (ECM)

Blasi v. United Debt Servs. LLC, No. 2:14-cv-83, 2017 WL 2255525 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: For a defendant?s spoliation and failure to participate in litigation, the court struck the defendant?s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and eventually also awarded default judgment and attorneys fees to the plaintiff; addressing whether to also sanction Defendant?s counsel for failing to prevent the spoliation, the court reasoned that ?it seems obvious that the party requesting sanctions has at least an initial burden of proof with respect to not only whether sanctionable conduct has occurred, but also with respect to whether the misbehaving party?s attorney may have been involved? and found Plaintiff?s assertions and evidence of such involvement ?too thin?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Charles v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-6180 (SLT)(SMG), 2017 WL 530460 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff lost the phone containing relevant video footage of the incident leading to plaintiff?s arrest when she attended a ?gala? carrying a ?really small purse? and thus had to hand-carry or lay down her phone and where she failed to call the banquet hall to determine if her phone was recovered (although she apparently did call her phone?s service provider and a relevant cab company in furtherance of her recovery efforts), the court declined to find that the loss was intentional and reasoned that the evidence suggested ?at most mere negligence? and that because there was a ?genuine issue of material fact regarding what transpired during the videotaping, the court [could] not find that the lost videotape was likely to favor Defendants? and thus denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewal at trial if ?Defendants could adduce evidence ? that the lost video recording was likely to be favorable to them?; notably, court applied common law spoliation analysis for loss of the phone, recognizing that the common law applied, ?except in cases involving electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims arising from arrest following alteration with police while Plaintiff recorded police activities

Electronic Data Involved: Lost phone containing video footage of incident leading to arrest

William C. Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., No. C17-5243-BHS, 2017 WL 4168502 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Defendant contended there was only one way to search the at-issue database but failed to explain why and where Plaintiffs noted Defendant?s failure to offer reasons why optical character recognition could not be used on the database, the court ?agree[d],? reasoning that parties might otherwise be encouraged to ?maintain inaccessible databases to limit their discovery obligations? and noted that Defendant may need to consult a third party vendor if necessary and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the issue

Nature of Case: Asbestos exposure liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database

View Case Opinion

Realpage, Inc., v. Enter. Risk Control, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00737, 2017 WL 1180420 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: The Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Defendants? computer images. Defendants made their source code available to Plaintiffs who then identified comments made prior to the produced source code date. Defendants insisted the pre-July 2013 source code was destroyed when Plaintiffs? former employee became a full-time employee of Defendants. The Court found that Defendants provided a sufficient explanation of good faith destruction of pre-July 2013 code but that limited forensic imaging could recover important deleted materials. The Court held that a tailored examination by a third-party forensic expert of Defendants? computers is appropriate to determine whether the pre-July code is recoverable or to assist in cross-examination as to its destruction.

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image

Alexis v Rogers, No. 15cv691-CAB (BLM), 2017 WL 1073404 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s request for forensic examination of Plaintiff?s computer as part of its Omnibus Discovery Motion, court noted Plaintiff?s testimony that her computer had crashed three times resulting in the loss of access to certain information, the fact that ?the majority? of Plaintiff?s work for Defendants was conducted remotely via computer, and the fact that Defendants were willing to pay for the examination, and concluded that Defendants had provided a ?legal basis justifying their request? but noted Defendant?s failure to provide sufficient information regarding the devices at issue, the identity or qualifications of the forensic expert or any details regarding the protocol or specifics of what to search for and thus denied the motion without prejudice

Nature of Case: Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, and retaliatory, wrongful termination, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computer

Moody v. CSX Transp., —-F.Supp.3d—, No. 07-CV-6398P, 2017 WL 4173358 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where event data recorder information saved on a laptop computer (1) was transferred to a central repository (?the Vault?) without validation and later found to be unreadable and (2) the original files were destroyed, without validating the files in the Vault, with the laptop after a hardware malfunction, court granted plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference but declined to strike defendants? answer. Court found defendants? failure to review and validate file uploads to the central repository for over 4 years after the accident ?unfathomable? and concluded that ?their failure to access the files uploaded to the Vault for the four-year period before 2010 conflicted with their duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.? Court found defendants? actions unreasonable and without credible explanation and therefore sufficient to support a finding that defendants acted with the intent to deprive plaintiff of evidence.

Nature of Case: Personal injury (railway accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Event Data Recorder Files

TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs. LLC v Rodriguez-Toledo, No. 15-2121 (BJM), 2017 WL 1155743 (D.P.R. Mar. 27, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: For an individual defendant?s admitted disposal of his laptop and deletion of the contents of his external drive after transferring the contents to a thumb drive despite Plaintiff?s request to preserve and pending litigation, the court reasoned that Plaintiff ?plausibly suggests? that the laptop and hard drive ?might have? contained relevant ESI based on Defendant?s admitted accessing and copying of confidential files and imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and an order for Defendants to permit and pay for examination of the at-issue external drive, but the court declined to impose sanctions for the individual defendant?s loss of his cellphone ?based on the current state of the evidentiary record? where Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence sufficient to suggest that the loss was not inadvertent or to clarify the approximate time of the loss

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop, ESI, cellular phone

Catagory:Case Summaries