In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Cal., 2016)
Key Insight: whether party can be forced to use TAR v. search terms
Nature of Case: product liability
Electronic Data Involved: email and documents
Keywords: viagara, forced TAR
Portland Pipe Line Corp. et al. v. City of South Portland et al. (D. Maine, 2016)
Key Insight: Two step process of TAR and manual review of privilege negated need for in camera review
Nature of Case: declaratory relief re environmental ordinance
Electronic Data Involved: emails
Keywords: in camera review
Knauf Insulation, LLC v. Johns Manville Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 7089725 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2015)
Key Insight: Where Defendants identified 38 potential email custodians who may possess relevant ESI but proposed to load the emails of only ten custodians to save money and ?facilitate the predictive coding process? and where Plaintiff indicated that Defendant refused to informally disclose information sufficient to evaluate the importance of each custodian, the court briefly opined re: e-Discovery and the lack of any guarantee that all relevant documents will be found and then, reasoning that it had no evidence with which to weigh the likelihood that the 28 ?tangential custodians? would have relevant information but that in ?a high value? case the burden of $18,000 (the amount Defendant proposed to save) did not outweigh the potential benefit to Plaintiff of receiving the emails, declined Defendants? request to limit custodians; regarding cost-shifting, the court ordered that if the search of the 28 additional custodians returned fewer than 500 responsive documents Plaintiff would bear the cost of loading the materials but that if more than 500 were identified, Defendant would bear the costs
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)
Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)
Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)
Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report
Nature of Case: Design misappropriation
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant
Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)
Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., No. 12cv1737 JM (JLB), 2014 WL 3867495 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)
Key Insight: Plaintiff sought to expand the scope of defendants? review and argued that defendants? alleged cost and burden would be lower than represented because defendants based their representations on manual review, rather than predictive coding. Defendants responded that manual review was still necessary where the predictive coding tool merely indicated a probability that a document was relevant and was not ?foolproof? – thus requiring the review. Relying on Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court concluded that the additional discovery would be unduly burdensome and declined to grant Plaintiff?s request. The court also addressed Plaintiff?s request to require the defendants to run documents already produced through the predictive coding process. The court declined, reasoning that it had previously approved defendants? method of ?using linear screening with the aid of search terms? but, where defendant was willing to run additional terms, directed the parties to meet to discuss such terms.
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 6:11-md-2299
Key Insight: Parties reached agreement regarding the use of predictive coding for the production of electronically stored information (order dated july 27, 2012)
Nature of Case: Products Liability
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)
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
FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 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