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
Key Insight: Where defendant put ESI at issue by stating that plaintiff was fired, in part, for improper, personal use of the city’s computers, ESI relating to computer usage by plaintiff and certain others was relevant and city should have placed litigation hold on plaintiff’s immediate coworkers, those holding similar positions within the city, and the identified “key players”; court ordered city to bear the cost of forensic restoration
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: E-mail, internet usage logs, and other ESI
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
Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules
Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: District court affirmed in part magistrate judge?s order (at 2013 WL 5687559) denying plaintiff?s request for forensic examination of laptop computers used by plaintiff during her employment, as defendant produced 56,625 pages of documents from most recently used laptop, and burden and expense of forensic examination of previous laptop outweighed its likely benefit, given that plaintiff did not assert even a belief that relevant information existed on that computer that was not produced from other sources; court reversed in part magistrate judge?s order denying access to text and voice messages, finding that plaintiff demonstrated that ?the scale tips in her favor? in regard to two mobile phones provided by defendant to plaintiff and another witness for work-related purposes, and ordering parties to meet and confer upon protocol to be used in conducting search for responsive text messages and voice messages contained on the two devices
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Work laptops, and text messages and voice messages on certain mobile devices
Key Insight: Where producing party defended tardiness of production by explaining it had been awaiting agreement on protocol for ESI, as contemplated in parties? discovery plan, and proposed search terms from plaintiffs to conduct a supplemental search of ESI pursuant to such protocol, court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs? motion to compel, setting deadlines for plaintiffs to provide different custodians, dates and/or keyword search terms, and for production, resolving that production should be in the form of searchable PDF?s with the option of requesting particular ESI in native format if there is a demonstrable need, and requiring defendant to prepare privilege log meeting requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) and duly signed by counsel for any otherwise responsive documents withheld on grounds of privilege
Nature of Case: Fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices and negligent misrepresentation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court ordered adoption of parties? proposed order concerning the management of electronic discovery which contained ?some but not all? of the provision of the [Model] Order drafted by the Federal Circuit and indicated its additional consideration of the [Model] Order adopted by the E.D. Texas
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of defendants? search, including whether defendants had used the agreed-upon search terms, and the format of defendant?s production, and where plaintiff specifically pointed to an email that should have been produced but was not, the court noted plaintiffs? concession that defendants? search methodology did not result in plaintiff receiving fewer documents and that they had been able to use the information produced, despite their arguments regarding format, but ?nevertheless concluded? that defendants should provide additional information and ordered the submission of an affidavit detailing defendants? search efforts; the court concluded that the dispute in this case was ?caused primarily by the parties? mutual failure to communicate and work together in good faith to resolve the areas of dispute? and counseled that in future the parties should more clearly specify the way in which discovery will be conducted and, if they cannot agree, should seek judicial assistance
Nature of Case: Suit for damages arising from failure to provide proper ship management
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for leave to take immediate discovery to obtain information sufficient to identify Does 1-59 (by serving subpoenas upon their internet service providers and cable providers) was granted where plaintiff identified the missing parties with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine that the parties could be sued in federal court, where there were no other means by which plaintiff could obtain the information sought, and where plaintiff?s action could withstand a motion to dismiss
Nature of Case: Unlawful access to stored communications and copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Name of subscriber
Key Insight: Where parties had an agreement to produce in native format which the court had approved and adopted but later agreed that defendant could produce some information in hard copy (in light of defendant?s representation that hard copy production could be more quickly accomplished prior to pending depositions), the court found the parties agreement to produce in native format was modified and declined to compel re-production citing the burden and expense (including duplication of time and expense of conducting redactions, for example)
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and claims arising from South Dakota Dealer Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced in hard copy
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.