Inspection – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found that defendant waived attorney-client privilege as to specific emails where defendant failed to establish privileged nature of the communications and where defendant failed to properly identify the emails on a privilege log prior to their inadvertent production; court ordered adverse instruction in favor of plaintiffs as spoliation sanction where defendant failed to produce highly relevant hard drives for inspection and where defendants? proffered explanations for the destruction of those hard drives was contradicted and ?lame? in light of defendants? knowledge of their relevance and its duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, hard drives

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?

Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

Global Technical Search, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 2008 WL 789929 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant certified that he had deleted any and all of plaintiff’s proprietary information from his computer and stipulated to plaintiff’s requested relief, court ordered that a mutually acceptable representative of plaintiff be allowed to examine defendant’s computer to confirm permanent deletion of proprietary information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Recruiting firm’s database; computer hard drive

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 5381864 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Despite their production?s compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, court ordered defendants to specifically identify documents responsive to particular requests where plaintiff could not ?easily locate the documents? responsive to those requests within the production; court ordered defendant to use search terms provided by plaintiffs, despite objections of burden and privilege, but ordered use of connector term ?and? rather than ?or? to return documents ?more responsive? to the requests; court declined to order forensic imaging of hard drive but ordered defendant?s expert to produce attorney?s eyes only report of examination of the hard drive to address specific concerns and to provide plaintiffs with a directory list for all defendant?s non-Altair computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drives

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Tag:Inspection