Electronic Discovery Law – Page 248 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for leave to seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference for the purpose of identifying the unknown Doe defendants by allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the relevant Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but required the ISPs to provide written notice to the subscribers in question to provide them an opportunity to move to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

Romero v. Allstate, 2010 WL 4138693 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for production of documents in native format and rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs must show a ?particularized need? for metadata where ?multiple courts? have held the burden falls to the objecting party to establish hardship or expense and where defendants failed to show how such a production would negatively impact them and noted that were such a showing necessary, plaintiff would have satisfied it; court ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the search terms, additional custodians, and other ?essential details about [defendants?] search methodology? going forward but declined to compel defendant to disclosure the methods utilized for past searching where such an order would result in undue burden to defendants; court declined to compel defendants to certify that they had complied with their discovery obligations absent evidence of spoliation

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Hennigan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2010 WL 4189033 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of data related to certain product defects and ordered defendant to bear plaintiff?s costs incurred for the 30(b)(6) deposition which revealed the existence of accessible, relevant information upon finding that both defendant and counsel failed to take reasonable efforts to locate responsive information; court ordered defendant?s to conduct searches using plaintiffs? proposed terms where the information sought was relevant and where defendant?s proposed terms were too narrow to identify all responsive information

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Incident reports

People v. Jobe, 2010 WL 4106708 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err by refusing to dismiss based on prosecutions failure to preserve potentially exculpatory video surveillance tape where the tape was never in the possession of the State but rather remained in the possession of the market and where the exculpatory value of the video was not apparent, and thus there was no evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Attempted robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Martinez v. Rycars Constr., LLC, 2010 WL 4117668 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to quash subpoena to defendant?s telecommunication vendor seeking production of any and all cell phone records, emails, and text messages sent between January 2008 and the present for the purpose of discovering evidence of defendant?s drug use where the request was overly broad and potentially cumulative; court noted that a more targeted request may have been more appropriate but still questioned how the provider would be able to ?sift? the data to identify specifically relevant communications

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Communication data from cell phone service provider

Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and attachments by failing to timely issue a litigation hold and where those emails and attachments were lost as the result of an automatic deletion pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where the court determined the evidence was not ?crucial? to plaintiff?s case and where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of bad faith; court noted that the ruling did not foreclose the possibility that plaintiff could introduce evidence of defendant?s failure to retain relevant documents at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments

Hare v. Opryland Hospitality, LLC, 2010 WL 3719915 (D. Md. Sept. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of ?full and complete surveillance video? of the relevant incident but failed to establish that defendant had the burden to preserve any video aside from the portion produced or that any other relevant footage existed and was deleted and where plaintiff failed to establish the ?requisite state of mind?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Lunts v. Rochester City School Dist., 2010 WL 2786519 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants denied plaintiffs? spoliation allegations and opposed their motion for sanctions by asserting that all responsive emails had been produced, court ordered defendants to comply with a prior order requiring defense counsel to submit a declaration indicating whether any relevant ESI had been withheld and why and to provide a privilege log for any such documents and to provide a privilege log for three emails previously submitted for in camera review; failure to submit the declaration or the privilege log by a date certain would result in a $500 sanction for each violation

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Whited v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3862717 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For plaintiff?s willful and bad faith violations of the court?s orders which resulted in prejudice to the defendants, including unexplained delays in production and intentional deletion of files on computers which the court had ordered no one to use, and where the court had previously warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, court ordered dismissal of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Cross claims arising from insurance payments for home health care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Barrow v. Miner, 2010 WL 4016815 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing plaintiff?s claims as sanction for spoliation where plaintiff failed to preserve evidence and in fact purposefully acted to destroy evidence by utilizing scrubbing software and taking other deliberate measures

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs brought suit to recover losses based on a breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful termination, and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s computer