Keyword Search – Page 18 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3443563 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 2009 WL 222788 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants previously produced documents to regulators without any limitations as to subject matter, court ordered parties in present litigation to meet for at least four hours to discuss search terms intended to identify the relevant documents for production to plaintiff from amongst those already produced; where plaintiff sought documents beyond those previously produced to regulators, court found the request likely more burdensome than beneficial and ordered plaintiff to articulate need for additional documents and to consider compromises to avoid burden and expense

Nature of Case: Securities violations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 WL 508391 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued a number of discovery rulings, among them an order requiring AstraZeneca to produce communications between members of the Benefit/Risk Team for Seroquel; court reasoned: “Given the scope of this litigation, requiring a limited number (even 100) of known individuals to search for significant information is not an undue burden.”

Nature of Case: Drug product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

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

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Tag:Keyword Search