Bianchi v. The Bureaus, Inc., 2006 WL 3802758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2006)

In this brief order, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to allow her computer expert access a database maintained by defendant, for the purpose of determining whether the account information relating to plaintiff had been altered.  There was an issue about whether defendant had received notice of plaintiff’s bankruptcy, and whether a “bankruptcy scrub” of plaintiff’s account had been requested or done.  Plaintiff agreed to cover the expense of the examination, and the expert would access the database under a protocol agreed to by the parties solely to verify plaintiff’s account.

In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3821491 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2006)

In this order, the court ordered plaintiff’s expert witness to “immediately preserve any and all documents and information including, but not limited to, all computer(s), hard-drives, other electronic storage media, hardcopy documents, emails, e-documents, text messaging, instant messaging, phone records and voice mails, that refer or relate to Zyprexa,” his receipt of confidential documents, his obligations under various case management orders, and various other topics. The court cautioned that, if anything responsive to the order had been deleted or destroyed, “any and all relevant computers” were to be produced to permit forensic examination and recovery of such documents.

A copy of a New York Times article filed in the case and providing some background for the order is here.

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

In this reinsurance case, plaintiff sought an order compelling defendant to produce certain claim information. Defendant opposed the motion partly on the basis of undue burden. It explained that, although it processed thousands of claims, its computer system was incapable of segregating claims by the amount of the claim, the type of claim, the identity of the cedent, or the reason the claim may have been denied. The court criticized the argument, stating: “A sophisticated reinsurer that operates a multimillion dollar business is entitled to little sympathy for utilizing an opaque data storage system, particularly when, by the nature of its business, it can reasonably anticipate frequent litigation.” At the same time, the court acknowledged that a search of defendant’s entire database was infeasible in light of the tremendous volume of material accumulated. Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to propose a sampling protocol to obtain examples of claims files in which issues similar to those presented in the case were addressed. In order to facilitate that process, the court further ordered that counsel could take the depositions of persons familiar with defendant’s data storage system. Finally, the court ordered that, to the extent that defendant objected to any sampling proposal advanced by Zurich, it would be required to support its objections with specific evidence of the cost and burden involved.

Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 2006 WL 3499992 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006)

In this decision, the court concluded that plaintiff’s “persistent and egregious noncompliance with a series of discovery orders” fully warranted severe sanctions, including dismissal of its complaint and entry of default on defendant’s counterclaims. Among other failings, the court noted that plaintiff’s search for documents from its document storage and retrieval system was largely unproductive, and that plaintiff’s counsel had attributed the lack of success to defects in the keywords provided by defendant. The court rejected this attempt to shift blame:
Read More

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

This constitutes the parties’ agreed order and statement as to a document management plan in this multi-district litigation concerning two prescription drugs. Among other things, the parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve the hard drives of computers used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ decedents, and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol. The parties also agreed that responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment, and that “absent some exceptional circumstance and a demonstration by plaintiffs of some substantial need, defendants shall not be required to restore any backup tapes (specifically including but not limited to the 35 back-up tapes defendants made on April 29, 2005, specifically for purposes of this litigation).” The parties agreed that defendants would preserve the 35 backup tapes, but that they may otherwise resume the recycling of backup tapes.

Plaintiffs also agreed to defer to defendants as to the format of production, and specifically agreed to take ESI produced by defendants in any format that generally is searchable and manageable, including in native file format or as single page TIFF images with associated metadata.

The parties were unable to reach agreement on three subject areas, and those matters would be subject to further briefing and argument. Those disputed topics include: (1) how the cost of the discovery plaintiffs seek from defendants should be apportioned; (2) the scope of discovery relating to the production of entire electronic databases; and (3) whether plaintiffs should be allowed to perform their own forensic examination of plaintiffs’ computer hard drives, or whether an independent forensic consultant should perform the analysis.