Keyword Search – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

Clark Cnty. v Jacobs Facilities, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00194-LRH-PAL, 2012 WL 4609427 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite inadvertently producing (or discussing without objection) the at-issue document as many as times thirteen times, the court found that privilege was not waived where the parties stipulated that inadvertent production would not result in waiver and where the analysis under Fed R Evid 502 resulted in a finding that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure, including key word searches for privileged documents, and that prompt steps were taken to secure the document?s return upon defendant learning of the inadvertent production; notably, it appeared that the document was not identified either because it was labeled ?client-attorney? rather than ?attorney-client?

Nature of Case: Alleged gross mismanagement of construction project result in significant costs to plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., No. 5:10-CV-00522-BR, 2012 WL 4577718 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to image and search a particular hard drive and to conduct a keyword search of certain email accounts using plaintiff?s proposed key word search terms where the court determined that it was reasonable to expect the accounts to contain relevant information, where plaintiffs terms were appropriately limited in number and scope, and where defendant did not assert that the searches would be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drive

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

FDIC v. Appleton, No. CV-11-476-JAK (PLAx), 2014 WL 10245383 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced Relativity database with some 700,000 documents culled from its main server using search terms, and defendants complained there was no apparent logic to database and they could not tell what documents were responsive to what requests, court sided with defendants and ordered plaintiff to create files in Relativity into which it would place documents responsive to each particular request

Nature of Case: Receiver brought action against former officers and directors of failed bank

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

ADT Secs. Servs. Inc. v. Pinnacle Sec. LLC, No. 10 C 7467, 2012 WL 7170633 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that its failure to issue a specific litigation hold was mitigated by prior imposition of a no-delete policy which would have prevented any loss of evidence, the court determined it needed additional information on the scope of the policy and ordered defendant to provide information to determine if the scope of the policy was sufficiently broad and how it was communicated to employees; where defendant acknowledged that it did not search certain individual computers because all files created were to be saved in the ?My Documents? folder which was saved to a network server, the court noted the lack of assurance that employees followed the default settings and that they did not save ESI in folders outside of ?My Documents? and thus ordered a search of particular employees? computers using Plaintiff?s key word search terms

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lechase Constr. Servs. LLC v. Info. Advantage, Inc., NO. 2011/7765, 2012 WL 12294457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s request for an order approving the use of key words to locate responsive documents and instructed that if Plaintiff and/or its counsel was capable of searching both email and attachments, they may proceed with ?self-collection? but that if they could not, a vendor would be required to run the searches; court encouraged cooperation in determining keywords to be utilized

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Custom Hardware Eng?g & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell, No. 4:10CV00653 ERW, 2011 WL 10496 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Relying heavily on Ameriwood Industries v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006), court ordered the discovery of ESI on defendant?s computers in accordance with three-step procedure: 1) imaging of hard drive by forensic expert, 2) recovery of ESI from that image, 3) defense counsel?s review and production of responsive non-privilege information; upon parties? disagreement regarding search terms to be utilized in step three, court rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff?s proposed terms would result in an ?unreasonable number of irrelevant results? and the production of privilege information and also rejected defendant?s proposed search terms as too narrow, where defendant proposed that only exact matches, including in capitalization and phrasing, be considered

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropria-tion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2012 WL 528224 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on search protocol, including the number of custodians and number of search terms and whether ?terms of a sexual nature? should be included as search terms, the court appointed a special master to resolve the dispute, split the costs of the special master (unevenly) between the parties, and ordered that if the number of terms and custodians combined exceeded 40, plaintiff would reimburse 5% of defendant?s e-Discovery compliance costs for each occurrence (e.g., if the final search involved 22 custodians and 25 sites, plaintiffs would be responsible for 25% of defendants? cost [7 x 5%]); because sexual harassment related claims were at issue, ?ESI containing sexual terms is discoverable?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10-cv-204, 2012 WL 1886353 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding defendants? search efforts inadequate, court ordered discovery re-opened and that defendant conduct specific additional discovery, including additional searches on specific repositories, and provide specific information regarding how its search efforts were conducted and by whom; the court also provided a good discussion of preservation obligations, but ultimately concluded that additional information was necessary to make a determination regarding the reasonableness of defendants efforts; ultimately, court declined to impose drastic sanctions, but ordered additional discovery and that defendants pay monetary sanctions (attorneys? fees and cost)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Keyword Search