Electronic Discovery Law – Page 264 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

European Commission Announces Intention to Strengthen EU Data Protection Rules

Nov 19 2010

In a press release dated November 4, 2010, the European Commission outlined its goal of reviewing and amending its Data Protection Directive to address “challenges raised by new technologies and globalisation.” The press release announces the Commission’s intention to “put forward legislation next year to strengthen individuals’ rights while also removing red tape to ensure the free flow of data within the EU’s Single Market” and sets forth a “series of key goals”, including “[s]trengthening individuals’ rights,” “[e]nsuring high levels of protection for data transferred outside the EU,” and “[m]ore effective enforcement of the rules.” The press release is entitled, “European Commission sets out strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules” and begins:

What happens to your personal data when you board a plane, open a bank account, or share photos online? How is this data used and by whom? How do you permanently delete profile information on social networking websites? Can you transfer your contacts and photos to another service? Controlling your information, having access to your data, being able to modify or delete it – these are essential rights that have to be guaranteed in today’s digital world. To address these issues, the European Commission today set out a strategy on how to protect individuals’ data in all policy areas, including law enforcement, while reducing red tape for business and guaranteeing the free circulation of data within the EU. This policy review will be used by the Commission with the results of a public consultation to revise the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive. The Commission will then propose legislation in 2011.

To read the entire press release, click here.

Finding No Duty To Preserve, Court Denies Motion for Sanctions

Nov 19 2010

Huggins v. Prince George’s Cnty, 750 F. Supp. 2d 549 (D. Md. 2010)

In this litigation arising from a dispute between plaintiff, a landowner, and the County regarding the plaintiff’s use of her land, the court found that the defendant was not subject to sanctions for the destruction of a former employee’s email pursuant to County policy where no duty to preserve existed at the time of their destruction.

Upcoming Events -December

Nov 12 2010

Thomson Reuters 14th Annual Electronic Discovery and Records Retention Conference – Achieving Practical Proportionality

Dec. 1-2, 2010
San Francisco Marriott Marquis
55 4th St.
San Francisco, CA 94103

K&L Gates Partner Julie Anne Halter will participate in this conference which will address a myriad of topics, including e-discovery in all cases, proportionality, early case assessment, litigation with the government and much more.

To learn more or to register, click here.

e-Discovery in Oklahoma

Nov 03 2010

As of November 1, 2010, Oklahoma’s Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides for the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”). Closely mirroring the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Code addresses issues including the identification of “not reasonably accessible” information, the format of production, and sanctions for the loss of ESI resulting from the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

Oklahoma’s Code of Civil Procedure is available here.

Court Imposes Adverse Inference for Failure to Preserve Text Messages Related to Criminal Investigation

Nov 03 2010

United States v. Suarez, 2010 WL 4226524 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2010) (Not for Publication)

For the Government’s failure to preserve text messages sent between investigating agents and a cooperating witness, the court found sanctions were warranted and ordered that the jury would received a “spoliation charge” allowing (but not requiring) it to infer that the deleted messages were favorable to the defendants.

Where “Entire Computer and Component Manufacturer’s Industry” was on Notice of Potential for Litigation, Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Warrants Sanctions

Oct 28 2010

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Winbond Elecs. Corp., 2010 WL 3767318 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2010)

In this ongoing multi-defendant patent litigation, the court has previously addressed allegations of spoliation. In March 2009, the court found sanctions were warranted for defendant ASUS Computer International’s violation of its duty to preserve which arose in the “1999-2000 environment” of litigation surrounding the technology to resolve a defect in a particular floppy disk controller (“FDC”). In this case, the court reaffirmed its earlier holding regarding the trigger for defendants’ duty to preserve, namely that “[i]n late 1999 the entire computer and component manufacturer’s industry was put on notice of a potential for litigation regarding defective floppy disk components (“FDCs”) by the well publicized settlement in a large class action lawsuit against Toshiba.” Accordingly, for defendant MSI’s failure to uphold its duty to preserve, the court found sanctions were warranted.

Court Orders Production of Plaintiff’s User Names and Passwords for Social Network Accounts

Oct 21 2010

McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (C.P. Jefferson, Sept. 9, 2010)

In this personal injury case, defendant Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. sought access to plaintiff’s social network accounts and requested production of his user names, log-in names, and passwords. Plaintiff objected, arguing that the information was confidential. Upon defendants’ Motion to Compel, the court found the requested information was not confidential or subject to the protection of any evidentiary privilege and ordered its production to defendants’ attorneys within 15 days and that plaintiff should not take steps to delete or alter the existing information on his social network accounts.

Metadata is Subject to Disclosure Pursuant to Washington’s Public Records Act

Oct 15 2010

O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, 2010 WL 3911347 (Wash. Oct. 7, 2010)

In this case of first impression, and only the second of its kind in the country, the Supreme Court of Washington held that metadata is subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington’s Public Records Act (“PRA”).

Court Finds Data Not Reasonably Accessible, Orders Phased Approach to Discovery, and Declines to Shift the Cost of Production

Oct 14 2010

Barrera v. Boughton, 2010 WL 3926070 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Despite diligent efforts, the parties were unable to reach agreement regarding the appropriate scope of a search for responsive information. Plaintiffs proposed 40 custodians, 80 search terms, and a timeframe of nearly seven years. Defendants sought a phased approach and proposed limiting the initial search to three custodians, with plaintiffs to bear the cost. Defendants also objected to the temporal scope of discovery. Citing Rule 26(b)(2)(B), the court found the information sought “not reasonably accessible” and reduced the scope of the search, but denied defendants’ motion to shift costs.

Hot Off the Press: The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery

Oct 06 2010

Today The Sedona Conference® made available its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery. The commentary (published as a "public comment version") provides valuable insight and guidance on one of the hottest topics in e-discovery today. Among other things, the publication identifies six Principles of Proportionality, intended to “provide a framework for the application of the doctrine of proportionality to all aspects of electronic discovery.” Those principles are: