Case Summaries – Page 91 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Sharma v. BMW N. Amer. LLC, No. 13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of requested document retention policies where it determined that the policies were relevant and ?may help Plaintiffs to determine the universe of responsive documents and evaluate any gaps in document production? and that the production was proportional to the needs of the case where the modest number of pages at issue rendered the burden of production ?likely minimal, while the benefit of such information would be substantial?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: allegedly defective vehicles

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs? broad request for documents previously produced by Defendants in prior investigations or produced to or received from any government agency, regulator, department, etc. related to the issues in the current investigation failed to withstand scrutiny to establish relevance beyond merely ?bear[ing] on? the issues in the investigation, particularly where Plaintiffs failed to point to any specific information that that would be found solely in the unproduced documents and not in the 1.5 million documents Defendants did produce from prior investigations (?At bottom, then, Plaintiffs? entire relevancy argument hinges on a general contention that every communication and work product related to the regulatory investigations is ?likely? to contain additional relevant information. But that sort of conclusory claim is insufficient to support such an expansive discovery request.?); court also concluded that the requested discovery was not proportional, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing plaintiff an opportunity to renew their motion with ?narrower, more proper discovery requests.?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix rates (government investigation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced to government, all documents sent to/received from government related to issues in underlying investigation (including correspondence, subpoenas, CIDs, etc.)

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

Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to organize and label its document production ?so that it corresponds to the categories in the request? because the discovery documents were immediately available for inspection at plaintiff counsel?s office in electronic format already organized, identifiable, and searchable by claim number; defendants needing only to execute claims number searches to identify documents. Thus, the court concluded that unless and until an inspection is undertaken and shown to be unduly burdensome, the plaintiff?s offer to permit inspection of database comports with ?both the letter and spirit of rule 34.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spear Mktg., Inc. v. Bancorpsouth Bank, No. 3:12-CV-3583-B, 2016 WL 193586 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court allowed Defendant to recover electronic conversion costs where conversions were undertaken to meet discovery requests of Plaintiff

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to e-Discovery

Wilmington Trust Co. v. AEP Generating Co., No. 2:13-cv-01213, 2016 WL 860693 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching in two previously excluded timeframes, denying the motion as to documents generated at a time in which ?nothing of significance was happening? as indicated by Defendants and because the cost and burden of the requested discovery would violate the rule of proportionality but granting the motion as to information created after the filing of the complaint, where the court rejected Defendants? claim that nothing created after that time could have possibly been relevant and noted that Defendants failed to present any specific argument about undue burden, apart from having disassembled their review teams

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from previously unsearched timeframes

Catagory:Case Summaries