Electronic Discovery Law – Page 362 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Pace v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced requested work orders in .pdf format and then in other electronic formats in attempts to resolve plaintiff’s complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions since plaintiff could not show that production request called for any specific format and court could not conclude that defendant had failed to meet such request

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work orders

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for clarification and ruled that defendants would be permitted to conduct limited ex parte interviews with plaintiff’s former employee relating solely to particular database at issue, including the underlying functioning of the Advantx database and how Heartland, in particular, used that database and any custom-designed reports which Heartland may have developed; defendants were also free to ask former employee to operate the version of Heartland’s Advantx program and the Advantx database that Heartland produced in this case and were free to ask him to run searches using the program and to prepare any customized reports defendants may request from the database

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Interviews with former employee re database used by plaintiff

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it “bothersome” that it no attempt at all was made by some of the founders to search, even on a random basis, their personal or office emails, balancing the burden on the founders of conducting full email searches of their non-@hssh.org email accounts against the likelihood that such searches would recover few, if any, additional documents not already produced by Heartland, court declined to require founders to conduct any searches of their personal email accounts in responding to subpoenas

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal email accounts of plaintiff’s founders

Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant received from an anonymous source a copy of an email sent by plaintiff which had not been produced by plaintiff in discovery, court denied defendant’s motion for access to plaintiff’s computer but stated that defendant would be permitted to depose plaintiff about items in his possession and items no longer in his possession, and court would be willing to entertain renewed motion depending on the testimony obtained

Nature of Case: Student who was suspended and denied re-admission alleged discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying Ford’s request for clarification of January 4, 2007 Order, court nonetheless confirmed that plaintiffs may ask deponent about what materials are available for production, and if materials are not available, why they are not available; “Plaintiffs are not, however, permitted to use the deposition as a surrogate for production of the suspension document, and may not ask questions pertaining to the specific contents or rationale behind the suspension order.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notice

C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents listed on privilege log, court nonetheless found log inadequate and ordered plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log and, further, to identify whether or not each email listed is a ?string? or ?strand? email and, if so, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry in the privilege log

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had invited motion to address e-discovery issues in order to assure that e-discovery issues were moving foward, court granted motion and directed parties to the Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI for the District of Kansas to serve as guidance pendng enactment by the court of its own local rules and/or guidelines; court further noted that, although no formal preservation order had been entered, the duty to preserve evidence including ESI arises as soon as a party is aware the documentation may be relevant; court further warned parties to be “very cautious” in relying upon the safe harbor provision of new FRCP 37(e)

Nature of Case: Nuisance and CERCLA claims against owners of poultry growing operations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2007 WL 1932917 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where moving party did not proffer ?a scintilla of evidence? that allegedly missing emails ever existed in the first place but simply speculated that they may have existed, and even assuming arguendo that such emails did exist, moving party could not establish any of the three required elements of spoliation, i.e., 1) that the party with control over the evidence had a duty to preserve it when it was lost or destroyed; 2) that the evidence was lost or destroyed with a ?culpable state of mind?; and 3) that the evidence was relevant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and violation of the New York State Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Jacobs v. Scribner, 2007 WL 1994235 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Noting that a motion to preserve evidence requires court to consider: 1) level of concern for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of a preservation order; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to party seeking preservation absent such an order; and 3) capability of individual or entity to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering the evidence preservation, court denied (without prejudice) motion for entry of preservation order as premature since defendants had not yet appeared

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Videotaped interviews relevant to plaintiff’s claims