Tag:Keyword Search

1
Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)
2
Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)
3
MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 5381864 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008)
4
Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)
5
Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)
6
Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)
7
Tse v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 463719 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008)
8
United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)
9
In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 WL 508391 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2008)
10
Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

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

Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops

Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Despite court?s acknowledgment of the requested data?s relevance, plaintiff?s offer to provide a technical expert to perform the search, and plaintiff?s proffer of at least three alternative search protocols, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel a school district to search for specified terms in the databases of all its schools where court found that the proposed discovery imposed an excessive burden due to the district?s lack of technical resources and where plaintiff?s proposals failed to sufficiently lessen that burden

Nature of Case: Complaint alleges unreasonable seizure of high school student and use of excessive force resulting in permanent injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases at all school’s in district

Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to file joint status report describing results of targeted search of defendant’s data backup system with respect to particular witness and stating their respective positions on issue of whether such results warranted further search of data backup system for emails authored by or addressed to other individuals

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

Electronic Data Involved: All emails relating to plaintiff or his compensation generated in past ten years by plaintiff and other Wachovia employees

Tse v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 463719 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s grossly negligent failure to produce laptop computer earlier in litigation reflected blatant disregard of her discovery obligations; court granted post-trial motion for sanctions and awarded defendant its fees and costs for: drafting pre-trial spoliation motion concerning plaintiff?s laptop; addressing plaintiff’s last-minute discovery of laptop; submissions to court regarding data retrieval issues and how defendant?s pretrial spoliation motion was affected; and drafting a new motion for sanctions based on plaintiff’s misconduct with respect to laptop and prejudice to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

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

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

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.