Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 20

ADT Secs. Servs. Inc. v. Pinnacle Sec. LLC, No. 10 C 7467, 2012 WL 7170633 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that its failure to issue a specific litigation hold was mitigated by prior imposition of a no-delete policy which would have prevented any loss of evidence, the court determined it needed additional information on the scope of the policy and ordered defendant to provide information to determine if the scope of the policy was sufficiently broad and how it was communicated to employees; where defendant acknowledged that it did not search certain individual computers because all files created were to be saved in the ?My Documents? folder which was saved to a network server, the court noted the lack of assurance that employees followed the default settings and that they did not save ESI in folders outside of ?My Documents? and thus ordered a search of particular employees? computers using Plaintiff?s key word search terms

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2011 WL 10563364 (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For Defendant?s and counsel?s discovery violations, including delayed production of relevant information, wrongful certification that discovery was complete, producing a 500-page document 35 times, and failing to conduct adequate searches of responsive information, court evaluated the Enrenhaus factors and imposed monetary sanctions to be paid by both Defendant and its counsel; court?s analysis was particularly critical of counsel who the court concluded had ?abdicated its responsibility to exercise oversight of the discovery process? and who the court found to be subject to sanctions pursuant to both Rule 37 and 26

Nature of Case: Claims arising from contract for providing worker?s compensation insurance and claims administration

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection