United States v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 2005 WL 273030 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 2, 2005)

This opinion addresses the plaintiff’s motion to modify the case management order and establish certain discovery deadlines, as a result of defendant Medco’s electronic document production failings.

Earlier, Medco had notified the court of its failure to comply with the court’s deadline for document production a week after the deadline had passed. At the same time, Medco failed to inform the court when production would be complete or what documents still needed to be produced. Several weeks later, Medco claimed that its electronic document production was complete, with three exceptions: (1) documents that were withheld as privileged but that may not be privileged; (2) thirteen additional boxes; and (3) corrupted data that Medco was restoring. Plaintiffs, however, claimed that Medco’s electronic document production was still incomplete because several disks were defective and because there were major technical defects discovered in the electronic claims data that Medco had produced, including: (1) hard drive disk errors; (2) files containing questionable or missing data; and (3) and other technical file related issues. Read More

Williams v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144 (D. Mass. 2005)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff sought the court’s help in obtaining from defendant employer a particular email he claimed to have seen and possessed at one point, but no longer possessed. He sought an order appointing a neutral computer forensics expert to conduct the search for the email, and, in the event the email was discovered, to conduct an additional, more detailed electronic investigation “‘to locate and retrieve all electronic communications related to his employment and termination that have not as yet been produced by defendants.'” He also sought an order requiring defendants to “‘preserve all documents and information, whether in electronic or paper form, to suspend all recycling of any backup tapes, any automated deletion of e-mail, the reformatting of hard drives, and/or that an appropriate medium for retention of this type of data be disclosed and utilized.'” Read More

Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612 (C.D.Cal. 2005)

In this case, the court found that plaintiff’s efforts to obtain discovery regarding the over-detention of inmates in the Los Angeles County jail system were “unduly complicated and extraordinarily delayed by the failure of the County and/or its counsel to investigate promptly and effectively the records available, both in hard-copy and computer-based formats, regarding such over-detentions.” For almost nine months, the court and plaintiff’s counsel were never specifically apprised of the availability of computer-based records regarding over-detentions, despite extensive questioning by the court and court orders that declarations be provided regarding the availability of such documents and the burden associated with their production. Read More

Treace v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3142215 (W.D.Tenn. Aug. 10, 2004)

Insured sued UNUM Life Insurance Company for breach of contract, bad faith, and related torts based upon Unum’s denial of her disability claim. In response to an interrogatory seeking the identities of individuals who had contact with plaintiff about the claim, Unum represented that any record of telephone conversations with a claimant were kept in the claim file (which had already been produced) and it would be the same burden on both parties to search through those records to compile a “telephone log.”

Read More

Icu Medical, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 2005 WL 151927 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 4, 2005)

In response to a joint discovery dispute letter in which defendant sought an order requiring plaintiff to conduct an adequate search for documents in response to defendant’s production requests, the magistrate judge ordered:

(1) To the extent not already completed, plaintiff shall search all computerized files, emails, voice mails, work files, desk files, calendars and diaries, and any other locations and sources if materials of the type to be produced might plausibly be expected to be found there. Said search shall be completed no later than January 25, 2005;

Read More

Streamline Capital, LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 2005 WL 66898 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2005)

Previously, the defendant had sought sanctions for spoliation of evidence, arguing that plaintiff’s two principals (key witnesses in the case) had systematically deleted potentially relevant emails before and during the litigation. At that time, the magistrate judge deferred any decision on sanctions and ordered the two witnesses to consent to the production of pertinent emails still available through their email service companies in order to determine, to the extent possible, the degree of prejudice defendant suffered by virtue of the deletions. See Streamline Capital LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2663564 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2004). The court ordered that any recovered emails be delivered to plaintiff’s counsel to review for privilege, and that the balance of the emails be produced to defendant. This most recent opinion addresses defendant’s motion to compel production of several of the recovered emails withheld by plaintiff as privileged.

Read More

Burrell v. Anderson, 353 F.Supp.2d 55 (D. Me. 2005)

Plaintiff sued county and various employees of police department and attorney general’s office alleging due process, equal protection, First Amendment, and civil rights conspiracy claims stemming from incidents involving either plaintiff and his former girlfriend, or their daughter. Plaintiff contended that the defendant employees improperly responded or unacceptably failed to respond to these incidents because of gender-discriminatory attitudes and policies pertaining to domestic abuse. Read More