Electronic Discovery Law – Page 323 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where non-party indicated inability to perform electronic search of subpoenaed communication logs and estimated more than 100 hours of manual searching to respond and where subpoenaed information exceeded relevant scope of claims, court declined to impose ?unreasonable burden? on non-party and denied motion to compel; where identification and production of subpoenaed email would result in ?massive expense? but where plaintiffs offered to limit their request to a sampling, court decline to rule pending non-party?s response

Nature of Case: Wage and hour employment case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Cantrell v. Cameron, 195 P.2d 659 (Colo. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding the court abused its discretion when it ordered production of a laptop for inspection but declined to incorporate restrictions or narrow scope of inspection and denied defendant?s motion for a protective order despite confidentiality concerns including attorney-client privilege and proprietary business information, appellate court vacated order and directed lower court to issue protective order limiting scope of inspection; court noted that while personal computers do implicate confidentiality issues requiring ?serious consideration of a person?s privacy interest,? ?a personal computer?s contents are not confidential by nature?

Nature of Case: Traffic accident resulting in personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Bianco v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2008 WL 4661241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of defendant?s general counsel?s laptop for imaging despite testimony that the laptop had been used to create some of the documents at issue where there was no evidence of discovery misconduct, where defendant searched extensively for and produced documents responsive to plaintiff?s requests, and where the ?intrusive search? would likely lead to the disclosure of privileged and confidential information ; court noted that Rule 34 does not create ?a routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, emails

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding each email in string a ?separate communication for which a privilege may or may not be applicable? court rejected defendants? argument of extreme burden and ordered production of ?proper privilege log? identifying required information for each message; court ordered defendants to identify author, recipient, or copyee of redacted documents already in plaintiffs possession finding it ?unreasonable? to require of plaintiffs because defendants were obligated to justify privilege claim

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

U.S. ex rel. Her v. Regions Fin. Corp., 2008 WL 4493237 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where computer search identified 7845 potentially responsive files but defendant argued production would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiffs acknowledged that a 10% sampling would be sufficient, court ordered submission of computer printout of all potentially relevant files to the court and used online program to randomly select sampling for production; court granted plaintiffs? discovery requests for additional data related to loans only as they pertained to 10% sampling

Nature of Case: Violation of Federal False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: 7845 computer files

U.S. v. Soliman, 2008 WL 4490623 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered government to re-produce CD-roms containing 60,000 documents ?in some accessible manner that is readily understood by the parties? where government?s previous production provided defendant with no index or way to locate a particular document or cross reference between disks and where despite no preference within the rules between inspection and copying, the government had undertaken to copy the materials for plaintiff

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for healthcare fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Over 60,000 documents produced on CD

Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve limited, immediate discovery on third party internet service provider seeking identities and contact information of defendants where court acknowledged ?good cause exists for Plaintiffs? discovery because Defendants must be identified before this suit can progress?; court ordered third party provider to give five days notice to defendants and set deadline for potential motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email