Keyword Search – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s search requests were unreasonable and unduly burdensome and where defendant?s proposed ESI search could ?be reasonably expanded to search for relevant information without becoming unduly burdensome?, court ordered the parties to continue negotiating to identify 25 agreed upon search terms to search relevant custodians? reasonably accessible data; court found backup tapes ?not readily accessible because of undue burden or cost? and ordered defendant to run the agreed upon search terms ?only on reasonably accessible sources, such as active and archived data of network computers?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Zurn Plex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 1606653 (D. Minn. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arguing the requested search of emails and various computer drives would be unduly burdensome, court dismissed attorney?s affidavit in support of such objections as ?not compelling evidence? where attorney was not ?an expert on document search and retrieval? but, ?in an effort to control costs,? limited defendants? search to particular locations and ordered the use of 14 terms as supplied by the court or agreed upon by the parties; court invited defendants to renew their objections if the search nonetheless proved overly burdensome by submitting evidence, including evidence from ?computer experts,? in support of those objections

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants’ choice of plumbing fittings caused damage to plaintiffs’ property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Artie?s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1578251 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 7, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s response to plaintiffs? discovery requests encompassed as many as 20 supplemental responses over 5 years, including the production of 1,487,824 pages of electronically unsearchable ESI 5 years after plaintiffs? first request (which plaintiffs paid to convert to a searchable format), court found defendant?s efforts ?did not represent a good faith effort to comply with the rules of practice or the case management orders of this court? and violated ? 13-14(a) of the Practice Book and accordingly ordered sanctions including allowing re-deposition of witnesses at defendant?s cost, reimbursement of plaintiffs for conversion costs, and payment of plaintiffs? attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. Salazar, 2009 WL 1703232 (D.D.C. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: ?Unconvinced? that defendants had not unduly limited the scope of their search for responsive documents, court ordered additional searching but limited the scope of plaintiff?s proposed terms and parameters and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding: an agreeable search methodology consistent with the court?s opinion, the identification of potentially responsive databases and custodians likely to maintain relevant information, and ?a list of search directives? likely to result in the identification of relevant documents

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

Dunkin? Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 WL 1750348 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the information sought to be ?largely relevant and discoverable,? court granted defendants? motions to compel in part and ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a ?workable search protocol to obtain the information sought by the defendants in light of what was discussed at the motion hearing?; specifically, the court noted that defendants? proposed terms could be ?narrowed temporally? and that the scope of the terms could be tailored to individual employees identified by defendants and ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs with a list of employees whose email they wanted searched and the specific terms to be used for each person

Nature of Case: Action to enforce termination of franchise agreement alleging breach of contract and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Jutai 661 Equipamentos Electronicos, LTDA, 2009 WL 800143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff was obligated to produce responsive ESI but was ?not required to conduct an unduly burdensome comprehensive search of its electronic archives,? court ordered parties to meet and confer ?for the purpose of establishing reasonable limitations on the scope of [Plaintiffs?] obligation to produce responsive electronically-stored information, which may include restricting the search to certain? employees and agreeing upon a list of search terms?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Andrew Corp. v. Cassinelli, 2009 WL 736669 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered discovery into extent of defendant?s compliance with Settlement Agreement upon plaintiff?s showing that confidential information remained on defendant?s computer system and where defendant?s court ordered search for additional information included retention of discovery firm to search seven computers, an email server, and a scratch drive using 26 terms based on the content of the previously discovered confidential information, court found the search ?deficient? and that defendant had failed to confirm that all information subject to the Settlement Agreement was deleted and appointed a Special Master, at defendant?s expense, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s attorneys fees for its Motion to Enforce and Supplement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Tag:Keyword Search