Case Summaries – Page 90 – Electronic Discovery Law

Venator v. Interstate Res., Inc., No. CV 415-086, 2016 WL 1574090 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found defense counsel had committed two violations of Rule 26(g)?s obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry where counsel simply provided discovery requests to Defendant?s HR manager who conducted an independent, but ultimately inadequate, search for responsive information and failed to properly supervise the search, involve the IT Department (a best practice, according to the court), or follow up to ensure the search was adequate. Discussing the lack of a ?reasonable inquiry,? the court instructed that a non-lawyer will typically require more guidance than merely providing the requests at-issue and noted that ?attorneys have a post-investigation obligation to make sure all responsive information is provided.? Court ordered counsel to pay the reasonable expenses and fees associated with the motion for sanctions and for Defendant to pay $1000 but declined further sanctions where Defendant supplemented its response to discovery when additional responsive information was located.

Nature of Case: Claims arising from an industrial accident

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

In re Subpoena Am. Nurses Assoc., Nos. 15-1481, 15-1803, 2016 WL 1381352 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Circuit Court affirmed District Court?s order shifting a third party?s attorney?s fees ?that [were] necessary to a discovery proceeding under Rule 45,? but declined to shift attorney?s fees incurred in furtherance of the motion to shift expenses where such fees were not ?not necessary to [the third party?s] compliance with the discovery order as they were incurred after discovery was completed and as a result of [the third party?s] effort to recover fees, rather than in an effort to produce discoverable material?; Circuit Court also affirmed order shifting expenses for e-Discovery services where the Magistrate Judge found that ?(1) ANA advised Appellants that producing the requested discovery would entail significant expense; (2) Appellants were dilatory in communicating with ANA after the district court ordered discovery; and (3) Appellants changed the scope of the requested discovery, increasing BIA?s charges.?

Nature of Case: Third party subpoena/ cost shifting / taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shaffer v. Gaither, No. 5:14-cv-00106-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found dismissal was a disproportionate sanction for failure to preserve text messages lost when phone was dropped and broken but did conclude that Plaintiff and her counsel failed to take ?reasonable steps to preserve? those texts which resided only on Plaintiff?s phone, reasoning that ?[o]nce it is clear that a litigant has ESI that is relevant to reasonably anticipated litigation, steps should be taken to preserve that material, such as printing out the texts, making an electronic copy of such texts, cloning the phone, or even taking possession of the phone and instructing the client to simply get another one?; court indicated defendant would be free to examine witnesses who had read the texts and explore the circumstances surrounding their destruction and further indicated that the court had not ruled out a spoliation instruction, an option reserved until after the court heard the evidence at trial

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Explicit text messages

Orologio of Short Hills Inc. v Swatch Grp. (U.S.) Inc., 653 Fed. Appx. 134 (3rd Cir. 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court affirmed District Court?s denial of Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and issue sanctions on alleged spoliation, absent a finding that the hard-copy tapes at issue were destroyed in bad faith. The evidence in the record indicated the tapes were destroyed for the sole reason that the Defendant did not wish to pay a storage fee for the tapes; there was no reference to the litigation in the emails regarding the destruction.

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Robinson Patman Act and NJ Franchise Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard-copy tapes containing “tagged television commercials”

Lab. Skin Care Inc. v. Ltd. Brands Inc., No. 06?601?LPS, 2016 WL 1266564 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendants sought to recover costs incurred to scan and convert paper documents into electronic format, Bates stamp and print the documents they produced; as well as costs for taking corporate representative depositions. Plaintiffs objected ?on the basis that more than two-thirds of the production costs?are the costs of making electronic copies and extra paper copies of documents for [Defendants?] own use.? The court found Defendants costs were incurred in order to comply with the production of ESI, and that costs for Bates stamping was ?reasonable and necessary? – as Defendants pointed out ?producing 125,517 pages?without a single identifying number would render such production entirely useless.? Also, Defendants provided sufficient supporting evidence for the costs incurred in making copies of the produced documents. The court granted Defendants? request for costs. Plaintiffs argued the Clerk of Court?s finding that Defendants failed to meet the requirements of Local Rule 54.1(b)(3) regarding deposition costs was correct. This court indicated 28 U.S.C. ? 1920 provides the ?outer bounds? of a courts? discretion in awarding costs, citing the Third Circuit ?deposition expenses, including the costs of deposition transcripts, may be awarded as costs to the prevailing party if the court determines, at the end of the litigation, that the copies were of papers necessary for use in the case.? Finding Defendants? deposition and transcripts were ?at least ?reasonably necessary? as part of their efforts to effectively litigate this patent case,? the court granted Defendant?s request.

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant admitted to deleting emails while aware of potential litigation but claimed he thought the emails were backed up and that he never deleted anything from Plaintiff?s server, the court called the evidence ?troubling? but declined to impose spoliation sanctions because the evidence of bad faith was insufficient, citing in pat Defendant?s own equivocation for why he deleted the emails and his admitted practice of deleting emails in the ordinary course of business and the fact that the emails he admitted to forwarding to a personal account and then deleting were eventually produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information

Catagory:Case Summaries