Case Summaries – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hurley v. BMW of N. Am. LLC (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021)

Apr 27 2021

Key Insight: The three categories of documents sought by Plaintiff are relevant to the litigation. Further, production of the three categories of documents would not be disproportionate to the needs of the litigation. Production of the documents, which had already been digitized and indexed (and produced) for previous litigation, would be of little expense and/or burden to Defendant. The burden and/or expense of producing the documents do not outweigh the likely benefits of production.

Nature of Case: Product Defects

Electronic Data Involved: Digitized and indexed manuals and other documents

Case Summary

Edwards v. Junior State of Am. Found. (E.D. Tex. 2021)

Apr 23 2021

Key Insight: At issue were “racist and homophobic Facebook messages” one high school student allegedly sent to another high school student (plaintiff), both of whom were members of the defendant’s youth organization. Plaintiffs provided a partial .jpeg image (screenshot) of the alleged message and defendant requested additional ESI to authenticate the messages, namely HTML or JSON files, and associated metadata. Plaintiffs never objected to the discovery requests and failed to produce any documents for over a year. Plaintiffs then admitted through a digital forensics experts that the Facebook account had been permanently deleted and the native versions of the alleged messages had been destroyed. The court declined to dismiss the case under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) but applied Rule 37(e), finding that the native messages were relevant ESI and were deleted around the time plaintiffs had a duty to preserve them, and they could not be adequately replaced by the available screenshots. Therefore, plaintiffs would be precluded from offering any evidence about the alleged messages.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook Messages

Case Su m mary

Lukis v. Whitepages Incorporated (N.D. Ill.)

Apr 23 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel and to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline after Defendant refused to substantively respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Similarly, Defendant also had filed Motion to Compel Plaintiff to respond to its discovery requests regarding online account information, social media and browser history. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion(s) and partially granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel. The fact discovery deadline in the matter was extended to approximately two months after the Court’s order(s).

Nature of Case: Class Action Lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media, Online Account History, Privacy Settings on Websites, Internet Browser History

Case Summary

Maker’s Mark Distiller, Inc. v. Spalding Grp., Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2021)

Apr 20 2021

Key Insight: The litigation was over a licensing agreement regarding the use of trademarks owned by Plaintiff on cigars. Plaintiff filed a Motion(s) for a Protective Order and to Compel. The Protective Order sought would to preclude deposition testimony regarding functionality. The Motion to Compel sought to compel Defendant to utilize a new search protocol to find requested information (and documents) and produce financial records.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order was granted; its Motion to Compel was partially granted, requiring Defendant to produce financial records, and but denied insofar as it sought to compel Defendant to utilize new search terms to search for documents. Unreasonable delay by Plaintiff in raising the issue(s) of the new search terms and/or purportedly missing documents was a significant factor in the Court’s partial denial of Plaintiff’s Motion.

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Financial Records, Electronic Documents

Case Summary

Lamaute v. Power (D.D.C. 2021)

Apr 18 2021

Key Insight: In using the proportionality test, each factor should be examined to balance the needs and rights of both parties and determine an appropriate resolution. When requests are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case, the court may limit the scope of the documents a party is required to produce.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination, Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021)

Apr 02 2021

Key Insight: In litigation over product defect claim(s), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to produce additional records pursuant to its discovery requests. The Motion centered around search terms that Plaintiff sought to compel Defendants to utilize in searching for responsive records. Reviewing specific Requests for Production, the Court found that they were overbroad and lacked relevance. Plaintiff’s Motion was denied, and Plaintiff was ordered to show why it (and counsel) should not have to reimburse Defendants’ for attorney’s fees and expenses in responding to the Motion.

Nature of Case: Contract Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Search Terms

Case Summary

Measured Wealth Private Client, Grp., LLC v. Foster (S.D. Fla., Mar. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Forensic Examination to permit inspection of the Defendant’s cellular phone. Specifically, the Plaintiff sought iMessages and text messages for a 12-month period. The Defendant asserted that the temporal scope of the messages sought was too broad, the messages could be obtained from other sources, and the examination of the phone for such a long time period was a “mere fishing expedition”.

The Court directed that the forensic examination proceed with an agreed upon independent expert to examine a forensic image of the phone with the Plaintiff paying for the initial fees and costs for doing so. In such an image was not feasible, then the expert was to acquire as much data as possible from the device to allow for the recovery of the iMessages and text messages. The Court noted that the Defendant had been “obstructionist” in responding to Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests (which sought the above described messages), and expressed concern about the Defendant providing complete production of all requested documents in the litigation.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, iMessages, Cellular Phone

Case Summary

Doubleline Capital LP v. Odebrecht Fin., Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Mar 30 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought sanctions against defendants for intentionally destroying the encryption keys needed to access its internal “shadow” accounting system used to track illicit bribe payments to secure construction contracts. The court imposed sanctions against defendants under Rule 37(e)(1) to allow the jury to consider evidence surround the destruction of the encryption keys but declined to impose a mandatory adverse inference requested by plaintiffs under Rule 37(e)(2) because the moving party did not demonstrate that defendant destroyed the electronic evidence “with the intent to deprive the other party of the information’s use in the litigation” – with the required intent to be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Nature of Case: Securities Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Encryption Keys

Case Summary

Brown v. SSA Atlantic (S.D. Ga. 2021)

Mar 16 2021

Key Insight: Defendant filed a motion to compel and for sanctions regarding plaintiff’s failure to identify and produce Facebook account information. Plaintiff had deleted or deactivated and failed to disclose the existence of his multiple Facebook accounts. The court found that the ESI was not “spoliated” since plaintiff only deactivated, not deleted, his Facebook accounts. However, the court found plaintiff’s conduct “troubling” and ordered plaintiff to produce account data for each Facebook account he maintains or maintained, whether deactivated or not, and if defendant finds that substantive information was lost or destroyed, it could renew its motion for spoliation sanctions.

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Case Summary

Copenhaver v. Cavanga Group S.p.A Omeca Division (D. Mont. 2021)

Mar 12 2021

Key Insight: If a motion to compel is granted, the party whose conduct necessitated the motion is required to pay reasonable expenses in making the motion, including attorney fees. However, payment cannot be ordered if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action.”

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Catagory:Case Summaries