Case Summaries – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mid. Am. Sols. LLC v. Vantiv, Inc., No. 1:16-mc-2, 2016 WL 1611381 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of at-issue data in ?condensed format? where Plaintiff originally requested and was provided with the data in it its ?original and unaltered format? and where the requested re-production was not proportional to the needs of the case because relevant evidence had already been provided; Court denied request for inspection to test accuracy of data produced where Plaintiff had not yet taken full advantage of the data in hand (by failing to take advantage of certain Excel functions) and thus had no basis for questioning the accuracy, thus rendering an inspection out of proportion to the needs of the case

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

GN Netcom v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 12-1318-LPS, 2016 WL 3792833 (D. Del. July 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where a senior executive deleted massive amounts of email and instructed others to do the same despite a duty to preserve and the company?s issuance of a litigation hold, the court indicated that the company?s efforts did not absolve it of all responsibility for the failures of a member of its senior management (and noted the company?s own bad conduct in litigating the deletion issue, including its initial refusal to disclose the identity of its forensic expert) and concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to preserve and found that the deletions were in bad faith and prejudicial to the Plaintiff and imposed sanctions including monetary sanctions in the form of reasonable fees and costs, punitive sanctions in the amount of $3 million and a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: email

Virtual Studios, Inc. v. Stanton Carpet, Corp., No. 4:15-CV-0070, 2016 WL 5339601 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the court acknowledged that after a duty to preserve arose in 2009 Plaintiff ?did little, if anything, to prevent the loss of emails,? including failing to instruct employees to retain relevant documents and emails and failing to backup emails stored on employees individual hard drives, but where Defendant failed to establish bad faith or an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose an adverse inference or other serious sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2) but, upon finding that the loss of emails was prejudicial to Defendant (where the parties offered competing narratives regarding whether Defendant was informed regarding Plaintiff?s limitations on the use of its images), ordered that the defendant ?may introduce evidence concerning the loss of the e-mails and may make an argument to the jury concerning the effect of the loss of the e-mails?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC, No. A-15-CV-597-RP, 2016 WL 6916944 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant resisted searching certain emails arguing undue burden and that it was unlikely that responsive emails would be found but where no evidence of burden was submitted, where not even a cursory search of the emails was undertaken and where there were examples of the sorts of email sought produced from other employees, the court ordered Defendant to conduct the requested search; similarly, where Defendant offered no evidence of the alleged burden to review and produce the at-issue call recordings, where Plaintiff offered to bear the full cost of transcribing the messages, and where the court determined that the likelihood that the calls would be privileged was low, the court ordered Defendant to produce the raw audiofiles of its customer service calls and voicemail; notably, at the outset of its analysis the court noted that at least 10 attorneys had appeared for each party and that it was ?apparent that the issues at stake are significant,? including posing an ?existential risk? to Defendant and therefore concluded that ?any proportionality argument has a high bar to clear to be successful?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer service emails, call recordings

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., NO. CV 103-50, 2016 WL 1317673 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where promised emails were not produced but Defendant ultimately produced all documents relevant to the alleged spoliation, including ?preservation communications to document custodians, a list of custodians who were searched, the search terms used to conduct the search, and project documents and materials relating to such searches,? and also submitted a representative for an extensive Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, the court found Plaintiff?s request to compel production of ?every privileged document described as concerning data collection?[wa]s overly broad, unduly burdensome and ha[d] not been shown to relate to the issue at the forefront of this entire exercise?the missing Leon emails? despite acknowledging that ?otherwise privileged documents may be discoverable upon a preliminary showing of spoliation.?

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to preservation efforts, etc. where Plainitff alleged spoliation by Defendant and sought to compel production of privileged information

Marshall v. Dentfirst, P.C., No. 1:14-cv-2421-WSD, 2016 WL 1222270 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiff seeks sanctions for Defendant allegedly failing to preserve ESI including browsing history, emails and pretreatment documents on Plaintiff?s work computer. The court quotes Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Treadwell, 734 S.E.2d 818, 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012), ?it is axiomatic that in order for there to be spoliation, the evidence in question must have existed and been in the control of a party.? Plaintiff failed to show that the alleged spoliated information existed at the time Defendant reasonably could have anticipated litigation but that the Defendant failed to preserve it. The court continued its analysis, finding that ?even if the evidence existed at the time Defendant had a duty to preserve it,? Plaintiff failed to show prejudice (which could have been mitigated through depositions) or bad faith on the part of Defendant. The court denied Plaintiff?s motion.

Electronic Data Involved: Internet browsing history, emails

McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 98603 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel ?the production and organization of certain documents and metadata? and considered the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to the production of electronically stored information. Ultimately, ?[t]he Court [found] persuasive the analysis that, where Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) addresses the organization of a production and Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) specifically addresses the form for producing ESI (where form of production is inherently not an issue with hard-copy documents), and in light of the purposes of the 2006 amendments to Rule 34 and of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)?s requirements, Rules 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) should both apply to ESI productions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of commercial lease agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Marten Transp. Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc., No. 14-cv-02464-JWL-TJJ, 2016 WL 492743 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, although a general duty to preserve arose in 2013, the duty to preserve the internet history of the at-issue employee did not arise until June 2015, which was after the employee had been moved to a different work station

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Barnett v. Deere & Co., No. 2:15-CV-2-KS-MTP, 2016 WL 4544052 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Applying 5th Circuit common law (but acknowledging the outcome of the motion would not change under recently-amended Rule 37(e)), the court declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of relevant documents pursuant to Defendant?s document retention policy at a time when there was no duty to preserve and, in its discussion of bad faith, noted that the court ?does ?not draw an inference of bad faith when documents are destroyed under a routine policy??

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including committee minutes and product testing documents

Glob. Materials Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co. Ltd., No. 12 CV 1851, 2016 WL 4765689 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the court concluded that Defendants deliberately failed to preserve evidence ?in order to prevent [Plaintiff] from obtaining the evidence and using it against defendants in litigation? (e.g., by liquidating computers and delaying accessing an email account until emails were deleted by the provider) and lied to the court and to the plaintiff (?Defendants were not merely dilatory or misleading in their litigation tactics; they were affirmatively deceitful?), the court reasoned that while an adverse inference or prohibition on introducing certain evidence may ?level the playing field? it would not sufficiently punish Defendants for their dishonesty, and therefore imposed default judgment as to liability (damages remained to be proven); court?s analysis noted that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) a specific finding of prejudice is not required where the finding of intent supports the inference that the missing information was unfavorable to the party who destroyed it

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, emails

Catagory:Case Summaries