Key Insight: A program to parse relevant data from an existing database may trump usual course of business format
Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic list of wrong phone calls
Keywords: computer program, usual course of business,
Key Insight: Plaintiffs files motion to compel text messages in April 2016, Discovery had closed in November 2015. Defendant’s failure to realize that they couldn’t search specifically for text messages is not basis for granting motion to compel so late. Decision was later vacated.
Nature of Case: Contract Dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages
Keywords: Text messages; after discovery closed
Key Insight: Defendant produced in format requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed motion to compel on grounds documents not matched up to requests. Due to burden on Defendant and lack of prejudice to Plaintiff, Defendant not required to change format of production.
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI Production
Keywords: Format; ordinary course of business
Key Insight: Sanctions not found because VHS degrades naturally and missing reports were not proven relevant
Nature of Case: false arrest
Electronic Data Involved: video VHS, lost original tape, paper documents
Keywords: 37(e) ignored, lost original tape, missing reports, culpable state of mind
Key Insight: Can documents be compelled to be produced in multiple formats, or in a certain specified format?
Nature of Case: Employment
Electronic Data Involved: Business documents, personnel files
Keywords: Multiple formats, native format
Key Insight: Where Defendant objected to the production of duplicate documents but agreed to provide a spreadsheet with metadata for every document and to produce duplicates identified by Plaintiff, court concluded that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that Defendant?s proposal was unreasonable and denied her motion to compel
Nature of Case: Denial of tenure based on gender discrimination and retaliation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of at-issue data in ?condensed format? where Plaintiff originally requested and was provided with the data in it its ?original and unaltered format? and where the requested re-production was not proportional to the needs of the case because relevant evidence had already been provided; Court denied request for inspection to test accuracy of data produced where Plaintiff had not yet taken full advantage of the data in hand (by failing to take advantage of certain Excel functions) and thus had no basis for questioning the accuracy, thus rendering an inspection out of proportion to the needs of the case
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court entered order requiring production of software necessary to review responsive data and ordered that either Defendant would ?provide Plaintiff with a laptop computer loaded with a copy of the responsive data and the software necessary to review that data, to be used solely for the purposes of this litigation and to be returned to Defendants once the litigation is complete? or that Plaintiff could procure a license for the necessary software and be reimbursed by Defendant
Nature of Case: Wrongful death
Electronic Data Involved: Software necessary to review responsive data
Key Insight: Following several extensions of discovery, court addressed motion to compel production of documents and email in native format and, noting that a particular format was not requested and that the parties? had consistently produced documents in hard copy or in searchable PDF format, found that only two documents ?arguably might contain metadata that could be relevant? and ordered that those documents be produced, but shifted the costs to the requesting party
Nature of Case: Theft of intellectual property, breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, database, ESI
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.