Keyword Search – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.

Nature of Case: Professional Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Benefield v. MStreet Entm?t, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1000, 2016 WL 374568 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where, despite a request from Plaintiff?s counsel to preserve all communications between plaintiff and defendants or their employees AND Defendants? OWN REQUEST that Plaintiff preserve information from her cellular phones, Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant text messages, the court rejected defendants? arguments that ?due to the nature of text message communications and the cellular devices they are stored on?a requirement to preserve text messages from private cellular phones is unduly burdensome and an invasion of privacy? and found that the messages should have been preserved and indicated that a ?spoliation instruction to the jury? would be given at trial but declined to preclude defendants? reliance on plaintiff?s text messages at trial or to order defendants to pay fees and cost associated with the extraction of plaintiffs? text messages from her own phone

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Venturedyne v. Carbonyx (ND Ind., 2016)

Nov 15 2016

Key Insight: Specific metrics needed to object to the burden of a key-word search. Defendant objected to document requests on relevancy grounds.

Nature of Case: Contract breach.

Electronic Data Involved: Key-word search of ESI.

Keywords: Cooperation and the negotiation of keywords. Transparency in all aspects of preservation and production of ESI.

View Case Opinion

Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)

Oct 28 2016

Key Insight: Discovery is not disproportionate just because you say so. Insufficient privilege log.

Nature of Case: Class action involving alleged improper classification of independent contractor status.

Electronic Data Involved: Production of emails in response to Plaintiffs’ requests.

Keywords: Produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s search terms. Duplicative and not proportional.

View Case Opinion

In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Cal., 2016)

Oct 14 2016

Key Insight: whether party can be forced to use TAR v. search terms

Nature of Case: product liability

Electronic Data Involved: email and documents

Keywords: viagara, forced TAR

View Case Opinion

First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).

Aug 11 2016

Key Insight: Responding party’s ability to choose search methods is not above rule of proportionality.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty Action

Electronic Data Involved: Personal and business electronic devices

Keywords: “search criteria” “access[ability]” “uncovered evidence” “limit[ing] searches” “shielding” “Sedona”

View Case Opinion

Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)

Jul 29 2016

Key Insight: Discovery sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination.

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records including personnel files of supervisors and documents regarding performance of other employees.

Keywords: Failure to preserve, search terms, motion to compel.

View Case Opinion

AVM Technologies LLC v. Intel Corp. (D. Del., 2016)

May 03 2016

Key Insight: court allows keyword search of one database (agreed to by party) but denies search of three others deeming them disproportionate

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: database

Keywords: keyword search, disproportionate,

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Tag:Keyword Search