Electronic Discovery Law – Page 328 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant argued it produce in hard copy format (Excel spreadsheets) all the information that defense expert relied on in creating his regression models, court ordered defendant to produce raw data in electronic format but denied plaintiff?s request to depose defense expert or persons responsible for compiling the information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of raw, unfiltered data from defendant’s human resource database which defense expert used to conduct regression analysis

Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on parties? cross-motions regarding production of various types of ESI sought by plaintiffs, court denied motion to compel source code given its value and secrecy and plaintiff?s failure to make proper preliminary showing justifying production; court further denied motion to compel production of schema for Google?s advertising database, but granted motion to compel as to data from YouTube logging database and schema for Google Video Content database

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases, computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google’s internet search tool ?Google.com? and source code for YouTube’s ?Video ID? program

U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where party initially told government he did not have certain computers used in various businesses discussed in complaint, then revealed that he possessed the computers but objected to providing them to government, and then admitted having removed hard drives and hiring third party to create a mirror images, court ruled that government was not bound to accept mirror image made by third party and ordered party to produce computers to government for inspection; court further ordered government to promptly create mirror image of hard drives and return computers promptly to party

Nature of Case: Forfeiture action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of certain computers used in the transactions alleged in the complaint

Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Email message drafted by a Wachovia corporate litigation attorney summarizing conference call and formulating legal advice concerning bank-wide policy on Wachovia’s relationships with certain customers was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, notwithstanding inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that Wachovia conspired with telemarketing companies and payment processor to violate United States law

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where information requested was relevant to EEOC?s claim, and defendants failed to provide concrete substantiation of the alleged burden, either in terms of manpower, hours, or financial resources that would be required to compile it, court ruled that, even though EEOC requested information in electronic database form, defendants’ answers were not restricted by their electronic record-keeping system; court ordered defendants to make a good faith effort to compile supplemental information from all available sources

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records and information

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI