Case Summaries – Page 88 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH), 2016 WL 7407707 (D. Conn. Dec. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and related responses to a survey regarding recipients? computer use where, despite the absence of specific evidence of spoliation or a pending spoliation motion, the delayed (9-11 months) and rolling issuance of litigation holds was described by the court as ?leisurely, to an extent making it impossible to dismiss as frivolous [Plaintiff?s] suggestion that she might move for a spoliation sanction? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff was ?entitled to discovery in these areas, in order to discern the merit or lack of merit of a formal claim for spoliation claim? [sic]; regarding assertions that the hold notices were privileged, the court reasoned that ?the predominant purpose of the communication was to give recipients forceful instructions about what they must do, rather than advice about what they might do?; court?s analysis included identification of six ?decisive questions? relevant to ?spoliation cases involving litigation hold notices? including, when the duty to preserve arose, whether litigation holds were issued, when they were issued, what they said, how recipients responded and what further action was taken beyond the litigation holds to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation Hold notices and survey to recipients regarding computer use

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

Okada v. Whitehead, No. SACV 15-01449-JLS (KESx), 2016 WL 9448484 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant explained that certain emails were not produced because he lost access to the account which subsequently expired and thus the emails were not in his possession custody or control, the court concluded that the duty to preserve was triggered prior to the expiration of the account by the filing of a separate lawsuit involving the same at-issue property in which the parties to this case were codefendants and explained in footnote that it could locate no case law limiting the duty to preserve to an adversary as opposed to all parties to litigation and noted that the duty to preserve ?may carry over to subsequent lawsuits involving the same subject matter?; finding the spoliation was prejudicial but not intentional, the court ordered the jury be informed of the failure to preserve, but not instructed to presume anything about the content of the emails

Nature of Case: Breach of Settlement Agreement

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. Of De Pere, LLC, No. 15-C-444, 2016 WL 1275046 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiff?s computer or to allow a third party to conduct an examination where Defendant?s request was ?not calculated to produce information relevant to Defendant?s arguments or the proportional needs of the case? and where the court reasoned that even if Defendant found what it was looking for, it would not change its legal position

Nature of Case: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer (for inspection)

Bruner v. Amer. Honda Motor Corp., No. 1:15-00499-N, 2016 WL 2757401 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Feist v Paxfire, Inc., No. 11-CV-5436 (LGS) (RLE), 2016 WL 4540830 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s internet browsing history was highly relevant to her claims and to establish damages but was lost as the result of her computer crashing and the use of a cleaning program after the duty to preserve arose, the court did not conclude that Plaintiff acted intentionally to deprive Defendant of the information (citing a lack of evidence to dispute Plaintiff?s claim that she regularly cleaned her hard drives prior to litigation) but did find that sanctions were warranted to cure prejudice and indicated that the court would ?presume that the absence of any cookies is unfavorable to Feist in that she cannot attribute a specific number of redirections to Paxfire? and precluded Feist from arguing in favor of statutory damages for specific internet searches or proffering evidence of specific violations

Nature of Case: Wiretap Act violations

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Thorne Research Inc. v. Atl. Pro-Nutrients, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-784, 2016 WL 1122863 (D. Utah Mar. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant sought production of a complete copy of a Microsoft Access database utilized by patent?s co-inventor to input his formulas to assess the legitimacy of the claimed conception date. Plaintiff argued the database did not ?maintain metadata like word processing or spreadsheet programs do? and also that the database, maintained by a third-party, contained proprietary information of non-parties. Defendant maintained the stipulated protective order would protect the third-party proprietary information and that Plaintiffs had not argued that they would incur ?undue hardship or expense? in producing the database with its metadata. The court granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of the database and metadata for forensic analysis.

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Microsoft Access Database

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.'”

FTC v. Directv, Inc., No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ), 2016 WL 3351945 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following the parties? court-ordered meet and confer to achieve proportionality in Defendant?s requests for production of complaints from FTC customers regarding Defendant?s competitors, Defendant reduced the number of competitors about which it sought information from 10 to 3, but court also approved Plaintiff?s proposal to produce only a random sampling, even from the reduced list of competitors, where the proposal ?more closely comport[ed] with Rule 26?s demand for proportionality? noting that the relevance of the at-issue materials was ?largely speculative?

Electronic Data Involved: Customer complaints submitted to FTC re: Defendant’s competitors

Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2016 WL 54684 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found Defendants? discovery failures, including failing to implement a litigation hold for three years, failing to adequately communicate the hold, and failure to ensure compliance with the litigation hold were grossly negligent and imposed a permissive adverse inference as a sanction; court?s analysis included the admonition that ?the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one party?s demands does not determine the scope of the other party?s obligation to preserve documents?

Nature of Case: Class action civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: email, text messages, har copy

Catagory:Case Summaries