Appointed Expert – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2012 WL 528224 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on search protocol, including the number of custodians and number of search terms and whether ?terms of a sexual nature? should be included as search terms, the court appointed a special master to resolve the dispute, split the costs of the special master (unevenly) between the parties, and ordered that if the number of terms and custodians combined exceeded 40, plaintiff would reimburse 5% of defendant?s e-Discovery compliance costs for each occurrence (e.g., if the final search involved 22 custodians and 25 sites, plaintiffs would be responsible for 25% of defendants? cost [7 x 5%]); because sexual harassment related claims were at issue, ?ESI containing sexual terms is discoverable?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Commercial Law Corp., P.C., v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., NO. 10-13275, 2012 WL 137835 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding metadata related to documents at issue was relevant to the action and that a forensic search of the computers used to generate the documents was ?an appropriate method to locate and extract that information,? but recognizing that at least one of the computers belonged to an attorney, court fashioned a protocol that allowed for forensic examination of the computers while simultaneously protecting potentially privileged information thereon

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Wynmoor Cmty. Council, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Co., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 716480 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to allow forensic imaging of plaintiff?s computers for purposes of discovery where plaintiff?s production of ESI was very small, where plaintiff?s CIO admitted he had taken no efforts to retrieve any ESI, and where it was established that ESI may be present on plaintiff?s computers?possibly including electronic copies of hard copy documents which may have been shredded; court?s order called for court-appointed forensic expert to conduct examination and established other protocols to be followed

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Seven Seas Cruises S. De. R.L. v. V. Ships Leisure SAM, No. 09-23411-CIV, 2011 WL 772855 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants ?failed to properly conduct complete, thorough and timely searches of ESI responsive to Plaintiffs? discovery requests,? which the evidence showed resulted from ?a lack of familiarity and/or training in searching and producing ESI?, the court declined to impose default judgment and instead recommended that defendants? Motions for Summary Judgment be denied and ordered that defendants retain a third party consultant or vendor to perform a search for responsive documents, that responsive ESI be produced in a prescribed format, and that defendants pay plaintiffs? attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Claim for damages arising from defendants? alleged failure to provide proper ship management and care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chevron Corp. v. E-Tech Int., No. 10cv1146-IEG (WMc), 2011 WL 1898908 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: The court denied defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court?s order allowing forensic examination of the at issue hard drive by a neutral forensic examiner where defendant failed to meet the standard for reconsideration

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Tag:Appointed Expert