Electronic Discovery Law – Page 301 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered specific protocol for search of mirror images of defendant?s hard drive allowing defendant to first remove privileged and irrelevant material and create a detailed privilege log and then to produce the redacted drive to plaintiff; upon receipt of redacted drive, plaintiff was ordered to confer with defendant to establish search terms and to use those terms to identify potentially relevant information on the drive; where plaintiffs accessed information later claimed to be privileged, court would resolve dispute and privilege would not be waived

Nature of Case: Violation of Computer Fraud Abuse Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, interference with contractual obligations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Revenue report from database properly considered as business record under ER 803(6) where report was based on data entered and preserved in database in the regular course of business, where the database was regularly maintained and updated by the company?s accountants, where the accountants had personal knowledge of the information entered into the database, and where the foundation for its admission was provided by a ?qualified witness? familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the database

Nature of Case: Class action arising from alleged violations of Ohio Mortgage Act and common law violations of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Database report

Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: U.S. District Court affirmed bankruptcy court?s sanction that facts alleged against defendant would be taken as established and that defendant was prohibited from opposing trustee?s claims against him where forensic evidence indicated that defendant destroyed evidence by installing cleaning software and by installing new operating systems on relevant computers despite his ongoing duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Adversary action alleging fraudulent transfer

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of Am., 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Emails sent to co-workers to recruit them as co-plaintiffs not protected by the work product doctrine where plaintiff merely assumed co-workers would keep his communications secret but where court found that sending emails to employees of a corporation increased the likelihood that the material would reach others within the corporation and thus ruled that plaintiff forfeited the protection by using the work product ?in such a way that they may end up in the hands of [his]adversary;? where plaintiff sent emails to attorney family members and copied his non-lawyer sister or another relative, court ruled emails were protected by work product doctrine because material was prepared in anticipation of litigation and sharing with relatives ?did not significantly increase the likelihood that [defendant] would obtain private information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2009 WL 426556 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Responding to several of plaintiff?s concerns regarding defendants? production of electronically stored information, special master recommended denial of plaintiff?s request for production of a new, updated database where plaintiff already received updates regarding changes made to the database, where accommodation of the request would require considerable effort by defendants, including stopping all user activity in the database and creating five copies of the information for dissemination to all parties, and where the requested production would make analysis of some key issues more difficult ? recommendation was adopted by the court

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Database

D.G ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, 2009 WL 455266 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion seeking production of emails from particular custodians and rejected defendant?s argument that cost of production should be shifted where defendants did not challenge the relevance of the emails at issue, where plaintiff?s ?reasonably limited their request to avoid undue burden? to defendants, and where the court?s consideration of the Zubulake factors resulted in a determination that cost shifting was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Class action against DSHS

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Am. Coal Sales Co. v. Nova Scotia Power, Inc., 2009 WL 467576 (S. D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiff ?took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent disclosures by having two attorneys review documents prior to production; that inadvertent production of one document out of over 2,000 documents produced does not weigh in favor of waiver; that the extent of the waiver was not great because the document had not worked its way into the fabric of the litigation; that Plaintiff took prompt measures to rectify the disclosure; and that the overriding interests of justice and fairness did not conclusively counsel in favor of waiver,? court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order preventing use of inadvertently disclosed email; court found ER 502 applicable, despite application of alternative five-factor test by magistrate, and determined that court?s application of ER 502 did not prevent review of magistrate?s ruling where ER 502 and five-factor test were sufficiently consistent (see FN 1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape