Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 11

H.M. Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12cv28840-BAS-MDD, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For multiple discovery violations by Defendant and counsel, including improper certification of discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(g), failure to issue a litigation hold or appropriately supervise discovery, and intentional deletion of responsive materials and delayed production, the court imposed multiple discovery sanctions, including attorneys? fees and costs, issue sanctions, and an adverse inference; notably, the court indicated sanctions would have been imposed under New Rule 37(e), because the court found that the at-issue ESI was lost with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the information?s use in the litigation; Update: Compensatory sanctions vacated by District Court upon determination that parties? settlement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions (—F.Supp.3d—, 2016 WL 1267385 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016))

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, trade libel, unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

A.M.castle & Co. v. Byrne, No. H-13-2960, 2015 WL 4756928 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought ?physical access? to Defendant?s electronic devices based on the belief that Plaintiff failed to perform a thorough search, the court overruled objections to denial of the motion where Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant was in possession of any of Plaintiff?s company documents and where Defendant responded adequately to discovery, including hiring an outside party to perform forensic examination of the computers and utilizing hundreds of search terms proposed by the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of employee confidentiality agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7158212 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Defendant to search for documents from non-U.S. points of sale where the court found such documents would be of ?marginal relevance at best? and that the burden and expense of production outweighed the benefit, noting that such production would ?vastly expand? an already voluminous production, would entail additional translation costs, and would ?potentially require the involvement of additional entities or foreign law??; court also declined to compel Defendant to conduct searches of Account Representatives for 170 different airlines where Plaintiff failed to establish that the expanded search would reveal additional relevant information and noting that the productions of third party air carriers had not revealed any ?glaring deficiencies? in Defendant?s production

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2015 WL 8543639 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding defendant and counsel in violation of Rule 26(g) for failing to adequately search for discovery (and for their misrepresentations about those efforts), court instructed that ?Rule 26(g) should not be treated like the proverbial stepchild? and that ?Lawyers should not act like ?potted plants? and accept implausible representations from clients . . . .? and also found that sanctions were warranted pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) for defendant?s violation of the court?s order to produce; accordingly the court imposed sanctions and admonished defendant and counsel for their violation of Rule 26(g) and awarded Plaintiff their fees and costs incurred to obtain the discovery

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged plan to terminate franchise agreements

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., Inc, No. 3:15-mc-11-K-BN, 2015 WL 12731762 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge concluded that absent evidence of a special relationship or circumstance that imposed a duty to preserve evidence, a third party did not have an obligation to preserve evidence before it was served with a subpoena, even though it was aware of potential litigation against a party with whom it had a close working relationship. Where the non-party was ordered to search for and produce all responsive information but limited its search to its ShareFile and failed to adequately investigate whether responsive information existed on its computers and other devices, the Magistrate judge reasoned that compliance required more than ?simply asking current employees if they have responsive documents? and concluded that third party?s mere survey of current employees (omitting an employee with a difficult personality) as to whether they had responsive emails without an attempt to search or forensically image any devices in its custody failed to satisfy the Discovery Order?s request to make ?all reasonable efforts to search? for potentially relevant documents, violating Rule 45(g).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

In re Milo?s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, No. 12-1011, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 1650963 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of all of Plaintiff?s Facebook materials, the court found ?nothing improper? in Plaintiff?s redaction of irrelevant information from her prior Facebook production, distinguishing the present case from Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2011) in which the court compelled production of Plaintiff?s username and password, and reasoned, in part, that Plaintiff had already provided Facebook information relevant to the case and that Defendant failed to show that further production would result in more relevant information or that Plaintiff?s counsel?s assessment of relevance was questionable

Nature of Case: Claims related to harm to pet from jerky treats

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

Alter v. Rocky Pt. Sch. Dist., No. 13-1100 (JS)(AKT), 2014 WL 4966119 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding court?s finding that defendants lost materials due to their negligence in failing to: (1) institute a litigation hold until more than two years after plaintiff filed her notice of claim, (2) discuss a litigation hold with named individual defendants and other key players, (3) preserve all ESI regarding plaintiff from named individual defendants and all key custodians in separate backup tapes or in some other medium, or (4) preserve work-related ESI utilized by key players on their personal computers or other devices, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions as it found no intent on the part of defendants to spoliate material evidence and plaintiff failed to meet burden of showing with some degree of factual detail that lost materials were relevant or helpful in prosecuting her claim; court further denied plaintiff?s request for appointment of independent forensic computer expert, but did impose $1,500 sanction against school district and its counsel given that court found merit to some of plaintiff?s arguments

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection