Case Summaries – Page 85 – Electronic Discovery Law

Archer v. York City Sch. Dist., No. 1:13-cv-2826, 2016 WL 7451562 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs alleged spoliation resulting from school district?s deletion of former employee?s email account in accordance with its policy and more than 11 months before a complaint was filed, the court concluded that Plaintiffs presented ?no factual basis? in support of their allegations of intentional destruction of evidence favorable to Plaintiffs and declined to find that the school district?s decision not to renew the at-issue school?s charter was sufficient to trigger a duty to preserve such that the deletion would constitute spoliation (?Plaintiffs? argument that by the simple act of doing their jobs, Defendants should have been on notice of litigation that would not commence until nearly a full year later does not create knowledge that litigation is ?pending or probable.?)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from non-renewal of charter school’s charter

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s email account

Cohn v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-9369, 2016 WL 7157358 (N.D. Ill. Dec 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant sought production of Plaintiff?s emails, imposition of spoliation sanctions, and an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce responsive documents from her Gmail and LinkedIn account, but failed to do so (later third party productions contained emails sent from her Gmail account). Plaintiff admitted she deleted emails from her Gmail account at various times, and evidence showed she instructed a subordinate to start using their personal email addresses and to delete various emails. The court found (i) a duty to preserve existed as of at least November 30, 2013, (ii) that Plaintiff breached that duty when she deleted emails, and (iii) there was a strong inference that the emails would have been unfavorable to Plaintiff because (iv) she deleted the emails in bad faith (to admittedly ?hide? the information). The court denied Defendant?s motion for equitable relief, but allowed Defendant?s alternate request that Plaintiff must provide full access to her Gmail account (details to be addressed in a meet-and-confer).

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails (gmail)

In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4943393 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the parties disagreed on the discoverability of communications between Defendants? foreign subsidiaries and divisions and foreign regulators regarding the filters at issue in the case. Following analysis of the effects of the December 1, 2015 amendments on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and of the specific facts of the case, the court determined that the at-issue communications were ?only marginally relevant? and was persuaded that ?the burden of [the] foreign discovery would be substantial.? Thus, the court concluded that Defendants were not required to search their foreign entities for communications with foreign regulators. In the course of its discussion of the amendments, the court stated: “Amended Rule 26(b)(1) was adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 2072 et. seq. That statute provides that ‘[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’ Id., ? 2072(b). Thus, just as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1). The test going forward is whether evidence is ‘relevant to any party?s claim or defense,’ not whether it is ‘reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.'”

Learning Care Grp. v. Armetta, No. 3:13-cv-1540 (VAB), 2016 WL 4191251 (D. Conn. June 17, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant destroyed laptop of departed employee (a ?key point of contact? for Plaintiffs in their relationship with Defendant) in accordance with its usual course of business despite a duty to preserve, court found that the information lost was relevant and that prejudice resulted, but found that Defendant was merely negligent and that awarding attorneys? fees and costs was an appropriate sanction (not default judgment or an adverse inference as had been requested); court declined to consider the newly amended rules of procedure where the parties first raised the issue in September 2015, before the application of the new rules

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop of departed employee

Marten Transp. Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc., No. 14-cv-02464-JWL-TJJ, 2016 WL 492743 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, although a general duty to preserve arose in 2013, the duty to preserve the internet history of the at-issue employee did not arise until June 2015, which was after the employee had been moved to a different work station

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wai Feng Trading Co. v. Quick Fitting, Inc., Nos. 13-33S, 13-56S, 2016 WL 4184014 (D.R.I. June 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following several extensions of discovery, court addressed motion to compel production of documents and email in native format and, noting that a particular format was not requested and that the parties? had consistently produced documents in hard copy or in searchable PDF format, found that only two documents ?arguably might contain metadata that could be relevant? and ordered that those documents be produced, but shifted the costs to the requesting party

Nature of Case: Theft of intellectual property, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, database, ESI

Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD, 2016 WL 7440468 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of limited social media contents after narrowing the requests to a more appropriate scope

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network contents

Muhammad v. Mathena, No. 7:14cv00529, 2016 WL 8116155 (W.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Prison employees? failure to preserve surveillance footage of inmate altercation despite notice of the obligation to do so was negligent; negligence imputed to other employees named as Defendants in Eighth Amendment claim where, despite the lack of a conventional agency relationship, the negligent/spoliating non-parties were not merely ?disinterested third parties? but rather were employees of the institution(s) responsible for preserving evidence in prisoner litigation and where requiring a conventional agency relationship would ?present a dilemma in the context of prison litigation .. where responsibility for preserving evidence may be spread out among multiple officials within an institute and where the institutions themselves are typically immune from suit?; as sanction, court forbade Defendants from putting on evidence related to Plaintiff?s disciplinary charges and conviction or the actual contents of the video and indicated it would instruct the jury that Plaintiff had requested the footage be preserved and it was not and that ?the jurors should not assume that the lack of corroborating objective evidence? undermined Plaintiff?s ?version of events surrounding the fight?

Nature of Case: Pro se Eighth Amendment Claims (prison litigation)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Friedman v. Philadelphia Parking Auth., No. 14-6071, 2016 WL 6247470 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant failed to preserve relevant evidence for reasons including its failure to timely issue a litigation hold following receipt of a letter threatening litigation and its lack of understanding related to the migration of its data to a new archival system resulting in the loss of ESI (e.g., Defendant was notified of but failed to address an ?over limit folder problem? related to two custodians, failed to confirm that data had successfully migrated before instructing employees to delete information ,etc.) but where Defendant undertook SUBSTANTIAL efforts to address its discovery defects and Plaintiff was unable to identify any specific information that was lost (where much was received from third parties or eventually produced as a result of Defendant?s remedial efforts) or to establish an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose sanctions pursuant to recently amended Rule 37(e); instead, pursuant to Rule 37(a) the court ordered Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses necessary to prepare and file their motion for sanctions; regarding Defendant?s lack of a document retention policies and potential loss of data before implementation of its archive after its duty to preserve was triggered, the court indicated that prejudice was ?speculative? but invited a motion from Plaintiff for ?evidentiary rulings? if desired

Catagory:Case Summaries