Electronic Discovery Law – Page 277 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants

King v. State, 908 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Yahoo! linking defendant to the relevant account and screen name where Yahoo! stated it did not verify the personal information provided by its users and thus ?the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation?indicate[d] a lack of trustworthiness? such that admission under the business records exception was error

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

In re Nat. Fin. Enter., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 87618 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where party failed to provide adequate explanation for non-disclosure of relevant email and engaged in other questionable behavior, including providing evasive responses to deposition questions, but where scope of prejudice to opposing party was ?not clear,? court declined to impose dispositive sanctions but ordered discovery re-opened to allow deposition regarding the email and surrounding issues

Union Ins. Co. v. Delta Casket Co. Inc., 06-2090, 2009 WL 10665127 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion that Defendants bear the costs Plaintiff incurred in producing archived emails, implicated by Defendant?s 30(b)(6) notice. The notice came after a year and a half of discovery and one month before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff was required to use a third party to conduct the search, put the retrieved emails on discs, send them to a copy service to convert to TIFF files and print them so Plaintiff?s counsel could review for relevancy and privilege. Plaintiff spent approximately $35,000 on this process. The Court held that Plaintiff?s Motion was timely and Defendants had notice before the emails were produced that Plaintiff was seeking costs, Plaintiff met its burden of showing the cost and burden incurred were undue and conversion of the discs to TIFF format was necessary in order for Plaintiff?s counsel to review the emails prior to production.

Nature of Case: Insurance indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email

Lewis v. Ryan, 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted recommendation of the magistrate judge to impose an adverse inference and exclude certain evidence as sanction for spoliation where defendants indicated they could not locate information, including ESI, which, according to records retention requirements, should have been in their possession at the time plaintiff propounded his request and thus should have been preserved and produced; court found ?clear and convincing evidence that defendants were ?at fault? for recklessly and negligently allowing the documents to be destroyed

Nature of Case: Civil rights complaint arising from service of pork to Muslim inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, ESI

Golden v. State, 2009 WL 3153262 (Ark. App. Ct. Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite testimony that the methods utilized to copy surveillance tape could reduce the image?s fine detail and the State?s failure to comply with a court order to produce the original of the surveillance tape because it had been lost, the trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant a new trial where a duplicate tape is admissible to the same extent as the original and where there was no evidence of bad faith in the loss of the tape; in so deciding, court also cited testimony that defendant did not objet

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of original surveillance tape

People v. Buckner, 228 P.3d 245 (Colo. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court held admission of defendant?s cell phone was not error and did not constitute impermissible hearsay where the prosecution sought to show that an undercover officer?s number showed up on defendant?s phone, where the phone was authenticated by the officer?s testimony, and where the telephone was not a ?person? or ?declarant? making ?a communicative ?statement? within the meaning of the relevant hearsay rule; court rejected argument that admission of phone was error because it contained other phone numbers, texts, etc. where defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced and failed to identify any particular message, etc. that the jury would have obtained from the phone

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular phone

Scheuplein v. City of West Covina, 2009 WL 3087343 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where a forensic examiner appointed by the discovery referee submitted a declaration that the emails admitted into evidence were retrieved from plaintiff?s computer and that the printouts were accurate representations of the retrieved messages, and where the emails contained information only the plaintiff would know and the trial court found that ?the emails ?were, at least in part, authenticated by the plaintiff himself?, the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court?s finding that the emails were genuine

Nature of Case: Violations of Political Reform Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails