Backup Tapes – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States ex rel King v. Solvay S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2013 WL 820498 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order to limit unduly burdensome discovery and preservation demands where Defendant established the significant burden associated with preserving the multiple repositories of potentially relevant information covering 89 potential custodians, including thousands of back-up tapes, and where the court found that the allegations of the complaint did not justify the broad timeframe for discovery sought

Nature of Case: Qui Tam action alleging violations of anti-kickback statute and retaliation against Relators

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mejia v. Charette, No. 12-cv-449-JD-LM, 2013 WL 6001081 (D.R.I. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, Court deferred ruling on plaintiff?s motion to compel to the extent it sought records from Wyatt Detention Facility (a third party), and directed defense counsel to request from the WDF the records plaintiff sought and to report on the status of such request at the next pretrial conference; court further denied defendants? request to limit their obligation to preserve and produce ESI so that they need not maintain that information beyond the regularly scheduled deletion, purge or overwriting date unless they have actual knowledge that responsive information actually is contained in the system or unless opposing party specifically requests it in writing, and to exclude backup tapes from litigation hold, as defendants did not provide any reason why their obligation to preserve all relevant ESI, including backup tapes or disks, should be voided, or why they should be excused from a party?s general duty to preserve relevant evidence once on notice of litigation

Nature of Case: Inmate at Wyatt Detention Facility asserted escessive force claims against four U.S. Marshals

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

General Elec. Co. v. Wilkins, No. 1:10-cv-00674, 2012 WL 570048 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing whether GE would be required to restore, search, and produce responsive contents of hundreds of backup tapes, court found that the data on the backup tapes was not reasonably accessible because of the significant expense of restoring and searching the tapes and further found that defendant did not show good cause to compel restoration and production, particularly where defendant failed to provide any evidence of the presence of unique, responsive documents on the tapes

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes

Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 1414070 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had ?practical ability? to obtain documents from third-party consultant, and thus ?control? of the documents for purposes of discovery, but declined to impose sanctions, despite finding that plaintiff had failed to issue a litigation hold letter and to ensure that its consultant?s records were being preserved, where investigation revealed that limited responsive documents were recovered from the consultant?s backup tapes and that only one was never produced and thus, plaintiff and its consultant had rebutted the suggestion that defendant was prejudiced; affirmed by District Court 2012 WL 1849101

Nature of Case: claims arising from construction contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Mailhoit v. Home Depot USA, No. CV 11-03892 DOC (SSx), 2012 WL 12884128 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for an order precluding discovery of disaster recovery backup tapes, court considered the factors laid out in Rule 26(b)(2)(B)?s Committee Note (2006) and relevant case law and concluded that Defendant met its burden to establish inaccessibility where restoration and production would be ?extraordinarily expensive, both in restoration costs and attorney time? and that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause to compel production, citing as most important the failure to substantiate the claim that the emails would be important or useful to her case; court rejected argument that sampling must be conducted before a cost-benefit analysis could be undertaken by the court

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster Recovery Backup Tapes

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

EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, No. 10-2696 STA/TMP, 2012 WL 4361449 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Upon Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, court recognized two relevant trigger dates, the second of which expanded the initial scope of preservation, and found that Defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve relevant emails but declined to impose an adverse inference and instead ordered Defendant to bear the cost of restoring 33 backup tapes to determine if relevant information was contained thereon

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Danny Lynn Elec. V. Veolia Es Solid Waste, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 WL 786843 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Backup Tapes