Electronic Discovery Law – Page 242 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data

United States v. Salyer, Cr. No. S-10-0061 LKK (GGH), 2010 WL 3036444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Acknowledging the general rule that the Government has no obligation to specifically identify Brady/Giglio material that has been disclosed to a defendant, the court noted its authority to require identification nonetheless and, considering the volume of the government?s disclosure, the individual defendant?s detention awaiting trial, the small size of his defense team, the lack of parallel civil litigation, and the lack of corporate assistance in identifying evidence, ordered the government to identify Brady material already disclosed and in subsequent disclosures

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held GPS data was properly admitted as a business record where the state presented testimony of an employee for the GPS monitoring company who explained how the monitoring system worked and the testimony of appellant?s probation officer who explained how he accessed the GPS database and printed the exhibits introduced, and where the probation officer had previously tested the accuracy of the GPS system by taking appellant to different locations and checking the accuracy of the monitoring data

Nature of Case: Probation revocation

Electronic Data Involved: GPS monitoring data

Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference for grossly negligent failure to preserve where defendant?s duty to preserve was triggered by its awareness that its decision to terminate an agreement with plaintiff would trigger litigation but where defendant failed to impose a litigation hold until after plaintiff?s complaint was filed and failed to discontinue its automatic deletion of emails which resulted in the loss of relevant emails; court?s analysis included discussion of prior sanctions against defendant for failure to preserve in Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stearman v. State, No. 29 A02-1002-CR-214, 2010 WL 59827 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held transcript of chat cut and pasted into word document in its entirety was properly authenticated where the officer testified that the transcript was a ?true and accurate and full and complete copy of the exact chat [he] had with the defendant?; Best Evidence Rule was satisfied where ?any printout or other output readable by sight shown to reflect the date accurately is an ?original?? in the context of information stored in a computer and where there was no evidence that the original messages, which were removed from the computer when the instant message program was removed, were erased in bad faith

Nature of Case: Solicitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Printed transcripts of instant messages

Susquehanna Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2012, 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?

Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel non-party to produce email communications which were in the possession of a party to the action but not subject to production because of party agreement: ?This court will not require Motorola to produce e-mail communications that Vizio and LG purposefully decided not to seek in the underlying lawsuit.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

People v. Flores, 941 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Case was reversed and remanded where trial court erred in admitting videotape that was admittedly altered as substantive evidence (as opposed to demonstrative evidence, for which the foundation would have been sufficient) where ?an adequate foundation must show that the original has been preserved without change, addition, or deletion and that, if a copy is introduced into evidence, there must be a cogent explanation of any copying such that the court is satisfied that during the copying process there were no changes, additions, or deletions.?

Nature of Case: Driving with revoked or suspended license

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape made by witness

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSK-MJW, 2011 WL 587971 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District Court declined to adopt recommendation for spoliation sanctions arising from defendant?s alleged bad faith destruction of a relevant email where the email was produced after the recommendation was made and thus ameliorated the need for finding of spoliation; in light of deficiencies revealed in defendants? search for responsive materials, court adopted recommendation that a forensic search of defendants? hard drives be undertaken, but reduced the scope of that search from all employees to those who ?received directly or indirectly, the customer information? at issue

Nature of Case: Claims arising from former employee?s alleged sharing of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer