Electronic Discovery Law – Page 250 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Beluga Shipping GMBH & Co. KS ?Beluga Fantastic? v. Suzlon Energy, Ltd., 2010 WL 3749279 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted non-party?s Google Inc.?s Motion to Intervene to oppose Defendant?s request for leave to conduct discovery and to subpoena from Google the contents of two cross-defendants? accounts and other, related information where production of the emails themselves was barred by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act absent consent from the accounts owners, and thus it was futile to issue subpoenas; court granted in part defendant?s petition for leave to conduct discovery and ordered Google to disclose documents reflecting when the accounts were created, the names of the account holders, and the countries from which the accounts were created ? information not precluded from disclosure by the ECPA ? and instructed Google to preserve the snapshot of the emails in the account

Nature of Case: Petition for leave to conduct discovery in foreign judicial proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to Google account holders, and contents of accounts (emails)

Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2010 WL 3777540 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing numerous discovery issues, the court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered the parties to submit a status report, preferably jointly, proposing a discreet number of proposed custodians and search terms, and to submit a joint-cost sharing agreement ?for the hefty cost of searching electronic files as represented by [defendant] with an accompanying affidavit in support of the anticipated costs?; court reasoned in footnote that ?justice require[ed]? cost sharing in light of the expense of searching electronic files and in light of the amount of documentation already produced by the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Meridian Fin. Advisors Ltd. v. Pence, 2010 WL 2772840 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the receiver?s failure to disclose the existence and specific location of relevant emails by the required initial disclosure deadline pursuant to Rule 26, the court imposed sanctions and precluded the receiver?s use of such ESI at trial; for the receiver?s failure to disclose its access to defendants? privileged communications (including accessing, through the actions of a third party, the personal and privileged emails of one defendant by accessing his personal email accounts without his knowledge), the court imposed monetary sanctions, including payment of the costs of investigating and bringing the motion as well as payment of one defendant?s attorney?s fees during the time his co-defendant provided the receiver with access to his privileged communications

Nature of Case: Receiver filed suit against former officers and employees for myriad of claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, civil conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to hold defendant in contempt for its unilateral redactions of alleged personal and confidential information but, upon evidence of over-redacting, ordered plaintiffs to identify approximately 3000 documents (a number provided by plaintiffs) to be sent to defendant for verification of proper redacting and for the parties to confer to fashion an appropriate protective with regard to the documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground proprietary or business confidentiality privilege

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. James C. Hormel School of the Va. Inst. of Autism, 2010 WL 3702528 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find privilege was waived as the result of a significant delay in identifying withheld privileged communications where defendants were aware that the pro se plaintiffs had consulted with counsel but failed to follow up regarding the existence of privileged communications, where defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, and where the court found no evidence of bad faith, but, noting that one plaintiff was a lawyer and should have known of the disclosure requirements, imposed a monetary sanction equal to defendant?s fees and costs for bringing the motion to compel

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff accused defendant of a ?document dump? in the wake of its production of 4,004,183 pages of documents and where defendants argued that the high volume was a result of plaintiff?s overbroad discovery requests, the court reasoned that the issue could have been avoided had counsel conferred to refine search terms and ordered the parties to confer in good faith to reach agreement regarding reducing the volume of discovery and that absent agreement, a special master would be appointed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged concealment of overvaluing real estate investments

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information