Case Summaries – Page 59 – Electronic Discovery Law

Keathley v. Grange Ins. Co. of Mich., 15-cv-11888, 2017 WL 1173767 (E.D.Mich., Mar. 30, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: In this insurance litigation, the district court affirmed an order of the magistrate judge requiring Defendant?s counsel to provide additional information regarding the fate of relevant photographs but, upon review of the declaration submitted, found that it did not adequately address the loss and ordered that a representative of Defendant?s IT personnel be deposed; in concluding that a duty to preserve existed prior to Defendant?s ?final? determination regarding the claim, court reasoned in part that Defendant had asserted attorney client privilege with its outside counsel re: ?coverage issues? prior to its final determination and also noted its decision to require Plaintiff to testify under oath, indicating its skepticism of Plaintiff?s claim, and Defendant?s own request for Plaintiff to submit additional evidence, including any pictures

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Brown v. Ferguson, No. 4:15CV00831 ERW, 2017 WL 386544 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court clarified discoverability of relevant social media content but indicated that disclosure of passwords was not required and not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media/social network (Facebook, etc.)

View Case Opinion

Zamora v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., Inc. , 3:16-05028-CV-RK, 2017 WL 1362688 (W.D. Mo., Mar. 11, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff in an employment litigation failed to preserve a potentially relevant Facebook post, deleted her work phone before returning it and failed to preserve information contained on numerous other phones (e.g., because they were lost, etc.), court found that ?Plaintiff cannot be relied on to disclose all relevant communications? and granted motion to allow access to the mirror image of a phone belonging to a former employee and co-worker of the plaintiff and to allow defendant to subpoena the former employee to produce a second phone for inspection and ordered production of Plaintiff?s current work phone, to be reviewed by a Special Master for potentially relevant communications, with the cost of the Special Master to be split between the parties ; court found request for dismissal or an adverse inference was premature

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from cellular phones, Facebook

Wilson v. Washington, No. C16-5366 BHS, 2017 WL 518615 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s concerns regarding Defendants production, characterized by the court as ?thousands of pages of unorganized documents,? the court reasoned that ?Rule 33(d) does not supplant a party?s duty to adequately label and identify responsive documents under Rule 34,? that courts have recognized that production of documents as kept in the usual course of business ?may require the producing party to include different identifying information according to the type of document or file produced,? and that ?the most recent? court decisions have held that both Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) apply to the production of ESI and concluded that Defendant?s response fell short of its duties under 34(b)(2)(E) and 33(d)(1) and stated that ?[s]ome form of further organization or specification is required to signify that they have provided ?rationally organized productions??

Electronic Data Involved: Unorganized ESI

Brown v. Albertsons, LLC, 2:16-cv-01991-JAD-PAL, 2017 WL 1957571 (D. Nev. May 10, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: In response to Plaintiff?s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, the Court engaged in an analysis of four types of available sanctions: Evidentiary, Monetary, Dispositive and Adverse Inference Instructions. The Plaintiff argued the Defendant intentionally destroyed evidence in the form of an incident report, a surveillance video and correspondence between Defendant and a third-party claims adjuster. The Court found that information from the incident report and the lost emails with the claims adjuster were available elsewhere and that the loss of the video surveillance was due to a system-wide outage that affected several stores. The Court found no evidence that Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly and denied Plaintiff?s request for Dispositive Sanctions but instead imposed lesser Evidentiary Sanctions by allowing the Plaintiff to introduce evidence that the incident report was lost or destroyed, that the Defendant failed to preserve the third-party communications and that Defendant?s video system failed to record the incident.

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including video

Air Prods. & Chems., Inc v. Wiesemann, No. 14-1425-SLR, 2017 WL 758417 (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where Defendants ?failed to clear the threshold issue of showing that relevant evidence was lost or destroyed? or, in the case of the alleged spoliation of ESI of one former employee, where defendants failed to show that the emails could not be replaced through additional discovery in light of the production of some of the employee?s emails from other computers

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. v. Dep?t of Defense, 14-1064 (JDB), 2017 WL 1214424 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought sanctions for a government agency?s failure to preserve and produce emails in response to a Touhy request (an APA action was eventually filed), court denied Plaintiff?s request to depose the Agency?s attorneys as a way to ?replace? the lost information (thus, according to Plaintiff, avoiding further analysis under Rule 37(e)), reasoning that the rule?s Committee Notes appeared to ?contemplate that the ?replacement? of lost information would come from another electronic source,? and declined to impose the requested sanction under any authority (either Rule 37(e) or the court?s inherent authority) where Plaintiff?s requested sanction was not appropriately targeted to the harm claimed and where no prejudice was established

Nature of Case: APA Action related to Touhy request

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Singh v. Hancock Nat. Res. Grp., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01435-LJO-JLT, 2017 WL 710571 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court recommended terminating sanctions for Plaintiffs? discovery violations, including failing to produce documents with metadata, as ordered, and failing to provide an explanation; failing to produce other documents as ordered, including a more legible version of a spreadsheet that Plaintiffs created; and falsifying discovery, but declined to recommend additional monetary sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rockman Co. (USA), Inc. v. Nong Shim Co., Ltd., No. 13-cv-04115-WHO, 2017 WL 275405 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: In US litigation, court found no duty to preserve was triggered by Korean Fair Trade Commission?s investigation of price-fixing in Korean markets absent case law establishing such a possibility (i.e., that a foreign investigation of domestic markets could trigger a duty to preserve in the US because litigation could someday be commenced) or any related complaints or lawsuits filed in the US or evidence that the price fixing conspiracy was directed at the US or that the KFTC?s investigation extended to impacts in the United States

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Teal v. Jones, No. 2015-CA-00259-COA, 2017 WL 58824 (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Spoliation instructions to jury were erroneous and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. No evidence of spoliation was presented at trial and hence spoliation instructions were improper. The Court also went on to discuss the spoliation evidence since it could arise in a new trial. The Court found no spoliation with regard to the deleted emails since Plaintiff?s deletion of emails occurred before she could have anticipated a lawsuit. The Court found that the disposal of Plaintiff?s laptop and sale of her desktop might be spoliation of evidence if there is reason to believe the deleted emails could be recovered from either computer?s hard drive. If Defendant can present evidence that the emails could have been recovered then the court may grant her an instruction on spoliation.

Nature of Case: Alienation of affections

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Catagory:Case Summaries