Electronic Discovery Law – Page 182 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 3307364 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Gray v. Novell, Inc., No. 8:06-CV-1950-T-33TGW, 2012 WL 3886026 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to explain why conversion and printing of all of plaintiff?s electronically produced discovery was necessary, court declined to allow defendant to recover those costs

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to printing of ESI

Stooksbury v. Ross, No. 3:09-CV-498, 2012 WL 3779113 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing post-judgment discovery issues, including plaintiff and receiver?s request to have certain hard drives imaged, court rejected defendants? claim that certain computers contained privileged information where those assets were sold to a third-party and thus any privilege was waived; court further ordered that personal computer and ipad belonging to an individual defendant should be imaged for preservation purposes, to be retained by the expert performing such imaging pending further orders from the court

Electronic Data Involved: Business and personal hard drives and ipad

Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 (CBA), 2012 WL 3705001 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, seeking data related to the number of times and when defendant logged onto plaintiff?s accounting system, defendant paid for an expert to restore damaged media but found no responsive data thereon and where plaintiff thereafter sought access to the damaged media to conduct its own search, the court indicated it would not allow a fishing expedition, but that if plaintiff wanted to bear the costs of duplicating defendant?s restoration and search efforts, it could retain a neutral third-party expert to do so, limited to a search of specifically identified folders; as to an inoperable drive that the parties previously agreed would be considered inaccessible, court would allow plaintiff to pay for neutral third party?s examination to perform a limited review; court declined to compel affidavit from defendant indicating specific steps to locate and preserve relevant data

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive and copies of same

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3656454 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a myriad of discovery disputes related to privilege logs, format of production, adequacy of plaintiff?s search for responsive materials, and the adequacy of its responses to defendant?s requests and ruled, among other things, that: plaintiff?s production in PDF was unacceptable and that production must be in native format or in the format requested by defendant and that plaintiff?s counsel?s statements (related to the court by sworn affidavit from defendant) were sufficient to put the adequacy of his compliance with Rule 26(g) in question and require production of plaintiff?s search strategy, including its interaction with counsel; court also compelled responses to a myriad of individual requests and ordered plaintiff to pay 80% of defendant?s fees in bringing this motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3150387 (D.N.M. July 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Over objection of plaintiff, court entered non-waiver and claw-back order pursuant to FRE 502(d)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Margolis v. Dial Corp., No. 12-CV-0288-JLS (WVG), 2012 WL 2588704 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? request for a preservation order as to voicemail and instant messages where defendants had already sent litigation hold notices requiring preservation such that Plaintiffs? request was moot; Court further declined to enter preservation order as to backup tapes where defendants established that their preservation would impose a significant burden and that the contents were likely duplicative and where the court found that the backup tapes did not fall within the exception identified in Zubulake v UBS Warburg, 220 FRD 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail, instant messages, backup tapes

Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC), 2012 WL 2375490 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over 24 40-year old magnetic tapes, 6 of which defendants had attempted to restore with only partial success (contents of 2 of the 6 tapes were recovered), the court found the information on the tapes to be not reasonably accessible in light of the significant but only partially successful recovery efforts but, recognizing the potential relevance of the contents, ordered that plaintiff would be allowed to attempt recovery (using outside vendors with sufficient security clearance) at their own expense and that if recovery was successful, the court would consider a cost-shifting motion

Electronic Data Involved: 40-year old magnetic tapes

FTC v. Johnson, No. 2:10-cv-02203-RLH-GWF, 2012 WL 2138108 (D. Nev. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced documents as kept in the usual course of business and labeled some documents to correspond to certain requests and where plaintiff included ?a searchable concordance and an index that identifies the document?s source, description, and date range? the court found that the production complied with Rule 34 and denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to ?respond to the requests for production of documents with organized and related responses?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fisher v. Fisher, No. WDQ-11-11038, 2012 WL 2050785 (D. Md. June 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: After carefully laying out the law surrounding document requests/productions, court evaluated plaintiff?s motion to compel and, invoking principles of proportionality, granted in part and denied in part the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI