Case Summaries – Page 92 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Westmoreland v. Wells Fargo Bank Nw., N.A., No. 1:15-cv-00312-CWD, 2016 WL 6471433 (D. Idaho Oct. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant sought to compel the return of Plaintiff?s company-issued laptop in order to obtain its contents; production of all emails sent by Plaintiff?s counsel to a joint email account shared by Plaintiff and her husband; as well as an additional search of Plaintiff?s Facebook account. Because it became clear that neither party had accessed the laptop during the litigation but that both parties were interested in its contents, the Court ordered that imaging and retrieval would be conducted by an agreed upon third party but, recognizing Defendant?s security concerns, allowed a representative to be present for the process. The Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails that Plaintiff?s counsel sent to a joint email account accessible by both Plaintiff and her husband, indicating that Defendant had not shown that Plaintiff waived attorney-client privilege regarding the communications with her counsel by having the emails sent to a shared email account and citing marital privilege. The Court denied the motion requesting a third search of Plaintiff?s Facebook messages, indicating that the messages produced to date were satisfactory and that the time and cost of an additional search was not ?proportional to the needs of this litigation.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Company-issued laptop, emails, social media (social network)

Delphi Commc?ns. Inc. v. Advanced Computing Techs. Inc., No. A15A1655, 2016 WL 1176998 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld trial court?s decision to strike defendants? answer and enter default judgment (as to one claim) as a spoliation sanction for Defendants? failure to preserve an image of their hard drives

Nature of Case: Claims against former employees and thier employer alleging copying of Plaintiff’s software products and solicitation of Plaintiff’s customers without consent

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Allen, No. 6:14-CV-00747-AA, 2016 WL 684658 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Noting that ?this court has held previously, ?the costs associated with the formatting and preparing of the administrative record are proper and necessarily incurred to produce electronic copies? for use in the case? the court allowed costs for ?converting TIFF images into searchable PDF format, electronically Bates-stamping the PDF images, hyperlinking the PDF images to the index, editing the index, and burning the images to DVDs.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Ferring B.V. v. Fera Pharm. LLC, CV 1304640(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 5396620 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant responded to court?s inquiries regarding its search efforts and marked its search terms and a ?non-exhaustive list of topic areas of documents produced to Plaintiff? as attorney work product, court reasoned that ?this is precisely the type information which is generally shared by counsel in complex civil litigation cases so that they may reach an agreement regarding the scope of production of ESI? and that ?[t]he norm in these cases is that counsel for both sides review and agree in advance on the parameters of the search, on any search terms to be used, and on the specific custodians whose files are to be searched? and ordered Defendant to file unredacted copies on ECF, but indicated that they would be under seal to protect information covered by the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Prometheus Labs. Inc. v. Roxane Labs. Inc., Nos. 11-230 (KM), 11-1241 (KM), 2016 WL 1559144 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Citing Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), the court declined to tax costs for all ESI costs where relevant invoices ?did not clearly show any services performed to create a readable format,? where OCR charges are not taxable, where there were no entries in the relevant invoices for ?scanning hard copy documents or converting native files to TIFF format? (both taxable costs) and where it was not clear from the invoices that the services were conducted for Plaintiff?s benefit, rather than Defendant?s; court rejected argument that OCR should be taxed because of the parties? agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings Ltd v. Haltman, No. CV 13-5475(JS)(AKT), 2015 WL 5027899 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015); Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings Ltd v. Haltman, No. CV 13-5475(JS)(AKT), 2016 WL 128154 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing motion for sanctions for the loss of emails in third party custody (GoDaddy), Iron Mountain back ups, and miscellaneous computer files, the Magistrate Judge concluded: 1)that Exeter had a duty preserve reasoning that since 2009 it had been involved in other litigation involving the disclosure of its books, records and financial documents, and that Exeter therefore knew or should have known that the documents ?could be relevant to future litigation? and also found that even if the filing of the 2009 lawsuit (involving different parties) did not trigger the preservation obligation, receipt of a 2009 subpoena should have and that in any event, the duty to preserve arose no later than Exeter?s 2011 bankruptcy filing; 2)that Exeter?s loss of ESI was ?intentional and done in bad faith? absent evidence of any effort to ensure preservation or to contact the third-party providers to inform them of the duty; and 3) that as a result of the intentional loss, a presumption of relevance was warranted and therefore recommended a sanction of an permissive adverse inference at trial; upon Exeter?s objection, District Court adopted the sanctions recommendation entirely and indicated that ?[W]hen there has been intentional destruction of evidence by an officer of a closely held corporation, other officers of the closely held entity may be subject to sanctions, even if they did not have direct control of the evidence at issue.?

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claims that Defendants defrauded Exeter?s creditors by transferring funds from Exeter to themselves, certain trusts, and other entities.

Electronic Data Involved: Email in third-party custody, Iron Mountain backups, miscelaneous ESI

Broadspring, Inc. v. Congoo, LLC, No. 13-cv-1866(RJS), 2016 WL 817449 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Allowing taxable costs for the conversion of native files to TIFF

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Catagory:Case Summaries