Electronic Discovery Law – Page 249 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

BBVA Compass Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Olson, 2010 WL 4004516 (D. Colo. Oct. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented evidence that searching for the information requested by defendants could exceed 400 hours and where the request was duplicative and other sources of information existed, the court found that ?the burden on plaintiff ? is heavier than Defendants? alleged need for the files warrants? and granted plaintiff?s request for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty and breach of contract, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/customer files

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., 2010 WL 3833995 (D. Idaho Sept. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the unredacted source code of defendant?s allegedly infringing products, the court credited plaintiff?s expert testimony that because source code ?generally contains notes by the writer of that code ?that explain to others who come later what the [writer] of the code was trying to accomplish at that portion of the code??, all of the source code was necessary to ensure his correct understanding of all portions and ordered plaintiff to produce the source code pursuant to the parties protective order; in so holding, court noted that ?the dilemma? of having to produce source court for unrelated products was of defendant?s ?own making? because of its business practice of bundling the source code for all of its products together

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage, Ltd., 2010 WL 3931100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendant?s source code?s metadata ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code) ? may be relevant to [plaintiff?s] claims,? the court ordered defendant to produce the metadata but indicated that it could redact the actual source code from the production and produce the metadata subject to the parties? stipulated protective order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of business ideas, false advertising, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata for source code ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code)”

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For CFO?s intentional destruction of evidence to defeat litigation despite a duty to preserve, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and imposed a $100,000 fine and found that more drastic sanctions were not warranted where the resulting prejudice was mitigated by the availability of all the defendants and other witnesses for questioning

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Kwon v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2010 WL 571941 (D. Haw. Feb. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion in limine and imposed an adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve surveillance video tape potentially containing footage of the underlying accident upon finding that defendant was aware of its duty to preserve but took no steps to prevent the footage from being automatically recorded over; court denied request for default judgment where such a drastic step was not warranted absent evidence of the ?requisite willfulness, fault, or bad faith?; court declined to impose monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

State of California ex rel Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 2010 WL 3991298 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants resisted production of electronically stored information and sought to shift the costs of such production to plaintiff by presenting affidavits and expert testimony regarding the expected cost of production which, in large part, was the result of defendants? lack of a data retrieval system for archived information and its failure to suspend archiving documents despite the commencement of related litigation in 2004, and where it was revealed that the expert testimony presented lacked sufficient foundation, the court held that defendants had acted in bad faith and could no longer be trusted and awarded plaintiffs? fees and costs in the amount of $42,978.43; affirmed on appeal

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ESI

O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Metadata is subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act

Nature of Case: Public Disclosure Act

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of records following foreclosure on plaintiffs? company where plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure preservation of relevant data after the foreclosure, including requesting the data?s preservation and permission to copy relevant records, and where ultimately some (but not all) records were obtained via subpoena from the third-party purchaser of plaintiff?s former assets and defendant was unable to establish prejudice; court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? replacement of two crashed hard drives where the court could not conclude the plaintiffs intentionally or carelessly permitted the destruction, particularly in light of their attempts to recover some data with limited success; court denied spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? use of CCleaner absent evidence that any data was actually deleted; despite the lack of prejudice resulting from one plaintiff?s admitted deletion of allegedly personal documents in light of those documents existence in hard copy, court imposed an ?adverse inference against [plaintiff?s] credibility as a witness? at trial citing the purpose of deterring similar misconduct in future

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

United States v. Nagle, 2010 WL 3896200 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Applying the four factor test from In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., court found that a memorandum saved on the hard drive of a work-issued laptop was protected by attorney-client privilege where, despite the existence of a policy warning that internet and email was not private, there was no policy banning personal use of work computers, there was no evidence that the employer ever monitored employees? use of work computers, there was limited access by others to the relevant employee?s laptop and such access was only with that employee?s permission, and where there was no testimony that the employee was aware of the employer?s policy

Nature of Case: Criminal charges

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged document saved on work-issued laptop