Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 12

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where district court had authorized limited discovery on the issue of standing, and parties disagreed on scope and method of search of data, magistrate judge concluded that the most efficient method was through the appointment of a special master as it would (1) permit a technical expert to review all the data in a timely and effective manner, (2) limit collateral attacks and claims of bias that were likely to result if either party conducted the search, and (3) protect any interests that parties not before the court might have, given plaintiffs’ claims that the data contains private information; magistrate judge recommended appointment of special master and further recommended using Google’s ?Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal? for selection of the special master, development of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Quantlab Techs. Ltd. (BGI) v. Godlevsky, No. 4:09-cv-4039, 2014 WL 651944 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After two-day evidentiary hearing, court analyzed conduct of various individuals and inferred bad faith as to each based on particular facts and concluded generally that lost evidence was moderately relevant and loss was moderately prejudicial; without stronger showing of bad faith or more definitive demonstration of relevance and prejudice, court declined to impose litigation-ending sanctions but would give spoliation instruction to be crafted at the same time as jury instructions

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Developer work stations, hard drives, flash drives, source code

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681035 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2014 WL 4681403) but sustained two of plaintiffs? objections to Google?s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal, ruling that the search should include not only each plaintiff?s network from which communications may have been sent, but also any other network on which plaintiffs? communications might have been received, and that plaintiffs should see the results of the special master?s searches in order to provide the special master with feedback to aid in subsequent searches

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Riley v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08123-PCT-JAT, 2014 WL 641632 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied five-part test to deny plaintiff’s motion for claim-dispositive sanctions but would allow reasonable attorneys’ fees and adverse inference instruction where city failed to suspend its 45-day retention policy for city employee email and defendant mayor apparently destroyed or failed to preserve relevant email in his private Gmail account, as numerous emails on which the mayor or his assistant were senders or recipients were discovered from third party sources, e.g., Google, Inc., but none were included in defendants’ production

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, 95 A.3d 1264 (Del. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Delaware Supreme Court affirmed rulings of Court of Chancery in all respects, finding no error in setting the range of dates for production, requiring Wal-Mart to produce officer-level documents, requiring Wal-Mart to collect and search data from disaster recovery backup tapes for two additional custodians where Wal-Mart had voluntarily collected disaster tape recovery data for nine other custodians, and invoking the exception articulated in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), to find that IBEW was entitled to documents protected by attorney-client privilege and work product protection in Section 220 litigation

Nature of Case: Pursuant to title 8, section 220 of the Delaware Code, shareholder brought action against corporation for production of documents related to alleged bribery scandal

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster recovery tapes for certain records custodians and documents related to company’s compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Kearney v. JPC Equestrian, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-01419, 2014 WL 5493187 (M.D. Penn. Oct. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of email where defendants flatly represented that additional emails did not exist and custodian swore under oath that his email box had been thoroughly searched and there were no further responsive emails

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Pac. Packaging Prods., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV200904320, 2014 WL 2766735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After ten days of hearings on Plaintiff?s Emergency Motion for Judgment on All Claims Based upon Defendants? Fraud Upon the Court, court found that defendants violated preservation order and deliberately ignored preliminary injunction requiring defendants to turn over all written or digital materials taken from or generated by plaintiff, or derived in whole or in part from documents generated by plaintiff, that contain customer lists, pricing information or similar information, and not to retain copies of such materials, and that defendants spoliated evidence and committed a fraud upon the court; appropriate sanction was the entry of default against defendants, dismissal of the defendants? counterclaims, and an order requiring defendants to compensate plaintiff for attorneys? fees and costs incurred in litigating the motion; parties to submit memoranda describing their views regarding the extent of the default established and the future course of the litigation

Nature of Case: Distributer sued former employees who formed competing company

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops, hard drives and other electronic storage devices

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ferriggi v. Best Yet Market of Astoria, Inc., No. 8564/2013, 2014 WL 5334000 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve or to make diligent efforts to retrieve surveillance video, but that loss of video did not fatally deprive plaintiff of means to prosecute his action given that witness who viewed the videotape and grocery store worker who unpacked boxes near accident location were available to testify, and accident report and medical response reports provided plaintiff with ability to prove proximate cause of accident; trial court would fashion appropriate negative inference charge against defendant based upon its failure to preserve the videotape and defendant would be precluded from offering testimony at trial to contradict plaintiff’s claim of adequate notice or that defendant created the condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall

Nature of Case: Slip and fall accident at supermarket

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Ackerman v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-CV-42 (SNR/JSM), 2014 WL 258565 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection