Electronic Discovery Law – Page 259 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

In re IKB Deutsche Industrie Bank AG, 2010 WL 1526070 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Denying third-party corporation?s motion to quash a subpoena, court rejected corporation?s claims of undue burden where the discovery sought was relevant to the foreign litigation and where the support for claims of burden was conclusory and failed to sufficiently identify the basis for the corporation?s objection or ?connect a dollar amount to the particular tasks that would be necessary to provide the requested information? and thus, the court was ?effectively prevented from making a meaningful determination as to whether the financial costs is unreasonable?

Nature of Case: Foreign litigation claiming $1.5 billion in damages arising from “Put Option Agreement”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.P.A., 2010 WL 1631519 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found defendants were ?at least? grossly negligent for failing to issue a written litigation hold and ordered defendants to pay the costs of plaintiff?s motion to compel as well as a $25,000 fine; in devising its sanction, the court considered defendants other conduct, including defendants? deficient search for responsive documents, defense counsel?s lack of meaningful supervision in the discovery process, and defendants? decision to withhold certain documents deemed insufficiently important, among other things

Nature of Case: Lanham Act/ mislabeled ingredients

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A., 2010 WL 1688203 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce 15 emails (which were discovered in a productions from third parties), court declined to find that plaintiff had waived its objections to defendant?s request but ordered plaintiff to file an affidavit from a representative with first hand knowledge of how the search was undertaken providing ?a specific explanation of what information was discovered concerning how and why the email at issue were not picked up during the course of that search? and noted that defendant was free to raise the failure to produce those emails with the witnesses at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England d/b/a Verizon Mass., 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment as sanction for discovery violations where evidence indicated that defendants lied to the court regarding its record keeping practices and the timing of their alleged ?loss? of financial records and withheld and destroyed financial records, including intentionally wiping relevant evidence from a hard drive using scrubbing software

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from defendants’ failure to pay access charges for services provided

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed his conviction and argued the State?s failure to preserve videotape depicting a struggle between police and defendant was a violation of due process, court found the videotape was not subject to production pursuant to Brady absent evidence that it contained ?materially exculpatory evidence?, and that absent evidence of bad faith, defendant could not show a due process violation arising from the destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to granted motion to compel production of additional source code where plaintiffs offered only speculation regarding the source code?s relevance and thus failed to meet their burden to establish the source code was ?relevant and necessary?, and where plaintiffs? experts had made no effort to review the source code already in their possession

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 WL 1286622 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find County employees culpable for spoliation of ESI, but ordered monetary sanctions against the County for negligently failing to adequately preserve ESI and declined harsher sanctions where many documents were produced in hard copy and thus the resulting prejudice was unclear; court?s analysis of culpability included recognition that the alleged spoliation occurred in 2003-2004, during a time when the law of preservation of ESI was not fully developed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from denial of mass gathering permit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s dismissal of charges related to defendant?s alleged possession of child pornography where FBI refused to follow the trial court?s order to produce a copy of the relevant hard drive to defendant?s expert, pursuant to the terms of a protective order, and where defendant made a ?substantial showing? that reproduction of the drive was required for the effective investigation of his defense because the FBI?s proffered solution of allowing defendant?s expert to analyze the drive at the FBI?s offices did not properly address defendant?s concerns about the privacy of his expert?s work or the deprivation of the expert?s references and resource which were not available at the proposed location

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied Boeing?s motion for protective order requiring the return of the privileged email at issue where the email was disclosed by Boeing to a third-party buyer of its ?commercial facility? when Boeing made a business decision to ease transition to new ownership by temporarily continuing to provide email services to the buyer?s new employees (who were former employee?s of Boeing) by allowing them to use and access their email accounts on Boeing?s servers (which contained the message at issue), and thus did not take reasonable steps to protect the privilege; objections to this opinion were overruled by the District Court Judge on Aug. 5, 2010: 2010 WL 3083536

Nature of Case: Benefits and pension issues arising from sale of commercial facility

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email