Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 15

Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL, 2014 WL 4079507 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In a lengthy decision, the Special Master recounted chronology of “extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI” by defendant and observed: “The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious.” The Special Master concluded that only case dispositive sanctions would fully protect plaintiffs from defendant’s willful discovery failures, and set out various recommendations including specific factual findings as to class certification and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada state wage and hour laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptops, personal mobile phones and BlackBerry devices, BlackBerry server, databases, SMS text messages, etc.

Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, No C12-1142JLR, 2014 WL 1356205 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that Defendant and its counsels? ?lackluster search for documents, failure to implement a litigation hold, deletion of evidence, refusal to cooperation with Plaintiffs in the discovery process (particularly as evidenced by its withholding of information regarding both the backup tapes and its interpretation of the parties? Stipulated Order), reliance on a recklessly false declaration, shifting litigation positions, and inaccurate representations to the court constitute bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith? and ordered payment of Plaintiffs? attorneys fees ?incurred due to Corinthian?s bad faith discovery practices? and also ordered fines against Defendant ($25,000) and its counsel ($10,000)

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation (discrimination, hostile work environment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email, ESI on backup tapes

Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257-JJB-RLB, 2014 WL 1891543 (M.D. La. May 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had failed to obey previous discovery orders by not timely searching for and producing ESI in response to plaintiff’s requests for production and that defendant?s representations regarding compliance were not completely correct, court once again ordered defendant to produce complete responses, without objections or redactions, ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s expenses incurred in filing second motion, and ordered parties to endeavor to agree on search terms to be used to obtain responsive ESI; in the event parties could not agree to search terms, custodians and date ranges, then defendant must use those proposed by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., No. 11-3684 DMC, 2014 WL 1494517 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to take a 30(b)(6) deposition to inquire regarding whether Plaintiff was ?using the appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,? based on Defendant?s expert?s determination that Plaintiff had ?some of most (sic) sophisticated and comprehensive state-of-the-art document search and location tools? and the assertion that ?Philips refuses to use these tools? and where Plaintiff indicated that it had always used ?a custodian-based approach to collecting ESI[ ],? and that it outsourced its collection to Microsoft Online Services and did not have a contract that permitted the type of searching and collecting suggested by the defendant, the court found that Plaintiff had adequately established the reasonableness of its approach and also reasoned that while the deposition itself would not be a burden, it would open the door to potentially burdensome additional discovery that was unlikely to be productive and thus was not warranted

Nature of Case: Appeal of decision of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sprint Commc?ns Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-JWL, 11-2685-JWL, 11-2686-JWL, 2014 WL 1794552 (D. Kan. May 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Evaluating parties’ competing discovery protocols, court noted that defendants had not asked Sprint to collect documents from 60+ custodians, but, rather, faced with Sprint?s failure to identify potential custodians in violation of the agreed discovery order, defendants started suggesting people and asked Sprint either to search those individuals? files or explain why production from particular custodians on list was not necessary; court disapproved of Sprint?s continued failure to work with defendants to reach a reasonable solution, rejected as ?clearly unreasonable? Sprint?s proposal to collect responsive documents from only 12 new custodians, and ordered Sprint to sit down with defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue; court further ordered Sprint to include in its document searches a ?human review? of hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Consolidated cases involving patent infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; documents produced in prior litigations; metadata

Espejo v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., No. 14-000095 HG-RLP, 2014 WL 6634492 (D. Haw. Nov. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff ran software to permanently erase all information on his computer then drilled a hole in his hard drive and threw it away, and completely erased and reformatted all data on recording device, and most of recordings produced by plaintiff had been edited, all at a time when plaintiff knew he had an obligation to preserve evidence, court found that plaintiff engaged in willful spoliation of highly relevant evidence, that plaintiff acted in bad faith, that defendants were severely prejudiced by the loss of evidence, that less drastic sanctions would not sufficiently compensate for plaintiff’s widespread destruction of evidence and that, given the extensive spoliation of relevant evidence by plaintiff, it would not be possible to fairly evaluate the case on the merits; court concluded that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction

Nature of Case: Retaliation and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer, email, recordings made by plaintiff of his interactions with other employees

Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., No. 12 Civ. 592(DAB)(JLC), 2014 WL 3610946 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for spoliation of contents of Plaintiff?s work laptop (by deleting the data and reissuing the computer to another employee) where despite the court?s finding that defendant had been grossly negligent in its failure to preserve, a presumption of relevance was not warranted and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the lost documents would have supported his claim; regarding the destruction of plaintiff?s supervisor?s laptop (who had resigned), the court ordered an adverse inference where the court found that the failure to preserve was grossly negligent and where defendant?s conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a finding that the evidence was unfavorable to it (notably, the court indicated it ?[did] not matter? who had wiped the hard drive because defendant should have taken steps to preserve the data well in advance of the supervisor?s resignation); court ordered an adverse inference for defendant?s failure to produce certain evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s laptop and supervisor’s laptop

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1396, 2014 WL 4925698 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court did not err in ordering that adverse inference instruction be given to jury as to contents of particular file where plaintiff had notice that file, which was within plaintiff?s control, was relevant to pending litigation, it attempted to refer to contents of file in support of motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff?s explanation for loss of the file was pretextual and not reasonable; appellate court reversed trial court?s decision to impose ultimate sanction of dismissal because record did not support conclusion that plaintiff willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with trial court?s orders, since dismissal rested on conduct that did not relate to court-ordered discovery and in most instances occurred prior to the first discovery order; appellate court vacated trial court?s award of attorneys? fees in favor of defendant and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of reasonable expenses because the basis for the award was unclear and the award appeared to include other fees and costs unrelated to the particular discovery motion for which they were awarded

Nature of Case: Suit to enforce obligations arising out of promissory notes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, spreadsheets

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection