Electronic Discovery Law – Page 263 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite finding Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 did not require the government to identify the evidence upon which it intended to rely at trial where defendants claimed the government had attempted to overwhelm them by providing access to a database containing millions of documents, and despite government?s production of an index to the database and directions to the materials it deemed most relevant, magistrate recommended the government be ordered to provide defendants with an exhibit list and hard copies of the exhibits ten days before trial, for the government to supplement that list as necessary, and for the government to comply in good faith where the government had previously offered to supply the same

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to destroy records and destruction of records

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Howell Educ. Assoc. MEA/NEA v. Howell Board of Educ., 2010 WL 290515 (Jan. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Reversing the trial court, appellate court found personal emails retained on public school?s email system were not public records and therefore not subject to disclosure pursuant to Michigan?s Freedom of Information Act; court also concluded that violation of an acceptable use policy that does not expressly provide that emails are subject to FOIA does not render personal emails subject to disclosure pursuant to FOIA

Nature of Case: FOIA

Electronic Data Involved: Personal emails

Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2010 WL 271426 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought leave to conduct third party discovery for purpose of identifying defendants, court granted leave to serve third party subpoenas on web hosting sites for purpose of obtaining identifying information, but denied motion to allow additional discovery exceeding the scope of plaintiff?s limited, stated purpose of identification of defendants

Nature of Case: Unauthorized sales of online gambling “chips”

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information

Wright v. City of Salisbury, 2010 WL 126011 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff purposefully arranged a conversation with the mayor, recorded the conversation, preserved the portion relevant to his lawsuit on his website server and then lost the remaining, irrelevant portion as the result of problems with his computer, court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish plaintiff?s bad faith or any prejudice resulting from the loss and where the court found plaintiff?s uncontroverted explanation for the loss ?reasonable and believable?

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2010 WL 145786 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to grant spoliation sanctions for the destruction of metadata resulting from defendant?s continued use of his company-issued laptop where such use was not prohibited by the temporary restraining order and was not shown to destroy relevant evidence and where there was no evidence of defendant?s bad faith

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

District Court Declines to Order Incarceration for Defendant’s Bad Faith Spoliation but Orders Monetary Sanction of $337,796.37

Nov 30 2010

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. ("Victor Stanley II")

As previously summarized on this blog, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered to “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two (2) years, unless and until he [paid] to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs that will be awarded…” as a sanction for willful, bad faith discovery violations which the Magistrate Judge ruled would be treated as contempt of the Court. On defendants’ appeal, the District Court Judge declined to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s order regarding incarceration:

“No Matter How Inadequate a Party’s Preservation Efforts May Be … Sanctions are Not Warranted Unless there is Proof that Some Information of Significance has Actually Been Lost”

Nov 19 2010

Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Addressing defendant’s motion for sanctions, the court found that although “plaintiffs did not engage in model preservation of electronically stored information in this case,” they were not subject to sanctions absent evidence that any relevant information had actually been destroyed. Significantly, in reaching this decision, the court took issue with certain aspects of the often-cited Pension Committee decision issued in the same jurisdiction earlier this year as well as with the discovery standard of “reasonableness and proportionality” set forth in another cited opinion, Rimkus v. Cammarata.