Case Summaries – Page 86 – Electronic Discovery Law

Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2016 WL 6522807 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: The parties in this case agreed to produce ESI ?in accordance with the Southern District?s Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.? Defendant sought production of all documents that ??hit? on the parties? agreed-upon search terms without further relevance review,? arguing that the terms were narrowly tailored and that any resulting hits were ?presumptively relevant and responsive.? Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s interpretation of the order was contrary to law and conflicted with the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), among other things. Citing a declaration from Plaintiff?s CEO that the search hits, which for some terms numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands, contained a substantial number of irrelevant documents, the court agreed that ?culling for relevance [was] warranted.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search hits)

Exclaim Mktg., LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-684-FL, 2016 WL 1258776 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court disallowed costs for ? ?iConnect Licensing Fees,? data hosting, ?OCR,? and near-line hosting? ?arising out of the storage and analysis of electronically stored information? as well as ?outside labor charges? described as ?tech time?

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Assoc. Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. V. BendTec, Inc., No. 14-1602(MJD/LIB), 2016 WL 740409 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court held that ?costs of creating and maintaining an electronic platform for e-Discovery are not recoverable under ? 1920(4).?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant?s request for forensic inspection be granted, to be undertaken by a neutral third party, in light of the fact that the information sought ?seem[ed] germane? and because despite ?hesitancy to allow on site inspections ? the level of distrust among the parties ? plead[ed] for such intervention,? the District Court overruled Defendant?s objections, noting that through their distrust and lack of cooperation ?[t]he parties and counsel themselves have created an atmosphere that warrants extraordinary circumstances and establishes good cause for an on-site inspection of Champion?s electronically stored information? and set forth a process by which the inspection would take place, including that the costs would be shifted to the requesting party ?given the nature of the accessibility of the [ESI] sought? (i.e., the information sought included backup and deleted material)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of ESI, including backup and deleted material

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Chemoil Corp., 15-2199, 2016 WL 9051173 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee

Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellog N.A. Co., No. 13 C 321, 2016 WL 316865 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to allow costs for OCR, ?concordance hosting,? ??volume mastering,? ?unitization,? ?document imaging,? ?CD duplication,? and ?media formatting,?? but did allow costs associated with TIFF and PDF conversion

Nature of Case: Patent

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs related to e-Discovery

Magdaluyo v. MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, no. 2:14-cv-01806-RFB-GWF, 2016 WL 614397 (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff specifically requested preservation of certain video that was not preserved, court concluded that Defendant ?simply ignored? the request and imposed an adverse inference that the video would have been favorable to Plaintiff; for Defendant?s failure to preserve surveillance video of alleged harassment for which there was no specific request to preserve, court reasoned that Defendant had a duty to investigate the allegation and preserve any video that existed of the incident and concluded that the jurors would be instructed that ?Defendant had a duty to preserve the video if it existed and that they may, but are not required to, infer that the video recording would have been favorable to the Plaintiff?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (discrimination, harassment, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

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

Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, No. 12cv0195, 2015 WL 11089521(D.N.M. June 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled limited production from backup tapes and declined to shift costs despite Defendant?s production of archived emails where Defendant failed to turn off its auto-purge and the purged emails would not, therefore, be located in the archive and where Defendant failed to specify the alleged burden and expense and Plaintiff agreed to limit their request; Defendant was required to search its SharePoint site where it utilized the site to communicate with employees, where many documents referred to the SharePoint, and where Defendant did not claim that the information was not reasonably accessible

Nature of Case: Trademark

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, SharePoint

Applebaum v. Target Corp., 831 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In affirming the verdict of the trial court, the circuit court specifically indicated that the trial court did not err in refusing to give an adverse inference instruction and in its analysis recognized recent amendments to Rule 37(e): ?It bears adding that to the extent Applebaum sought an adverse inference instruction for spoliation of electronic information, a 2015 amendment to Civil Rule 37(e)(2) required her to show that Target had ?intent? to deprive her of the information?s use. A showing of negligence or even gross negligence will not do the trick. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 2015 Advisory Comm. Note. Applebaum would not have been able to show any degree of fault for Target?s alleged destruction of records, because she cannot show that Target destroyed the records?if they even existed in the first place?after it was put on notice of litigation.?

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries