Case Summaries – Page 88 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL 1408459 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found that the at-issue discovery was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and declined to compel production of every document ?referring or relating? to Plaintiff?s ?designated Responsible Managing Employee? for all 11 of Plaintiff?s California projects where the court determined that the relevance was minimal, where both parties ?appeared to agree? that the request would require ?a search for every document to or from [the employee]? and Plaintiff alleged that many documents were not electronically searchable, and where the court recognized that ordering such production could cause a ?chilling effect? that may ?discourage [construction] companies from filing a lawsuit merely to avoid the discovery costs?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and other records “referring or relating” to specified employee

Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 3183, 2016 WL 1070828 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s request for $16,200.00 in costs charged by third party vendor who assisted in email production, including $16,000 for ?Digital Tech Time per GB: Tiff Conversion, OCR, Endorse & Export for Searchable PDF,? court concluded that converting files to TIFF or PDF was the equivalent of ?making copies? and was recoverable but that costs for making a document searchable are not recoverable; where Defendant failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the costs for each service provided, court reduced the requested recovery and awarded $4,000 for the ?Tiff conversion portion of the invoice? and also awarded $200 for the cost of two hard drives utilized for the email production

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs ( 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4))

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.'”

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

Lexpath Techs. Holdings, Inc., N0. 13-cv-5379-PGS-LHG, 2016 WL 4544344 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant used CCleaner on his work laptop and failed to produce three thumb drives, court concluded that the relevance prong of its analysis was satisfied (noting Plaintiff?s lack of credibility), that there was a duty to preserve, and that information was actually suppressed or withheld and, citing Rule 37(e,) imposed a presumptive adverse inference upon the determination that the loss was intentional, based on the timing of the spoliation (shortly following receipt of a cease and desist letter, including Plaintiff?s potential claims), among other things

Nature of Case: Claims arising from employee’s departure and start of competing business

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries