Keyword Search – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dover v. British Airways, PLC (UK), No. CV 2012-5567 (RJD)(MDG), 2014 WL 4065084 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014), affirmed, Dover v. British Airways, PLC (UK), No. CV 2012-5567 (RJD)(MDG), 2014 WL 5090021 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where parties entered into a stipulated protective order approved by the court that contained a provision concerning inadvertent disclosures, and plaintiffs inadvertently produced the protected information on the spreadsheets twice and conceded they were “careless,” court did not find plaintiffs’ conduct to be so “completely reckless” as to warrant a finding of waiver given the totality of the circumstances and particularly the nature of the production, plaintiffs’ prompt request for return of the protected information, and the overriding issues of fairness

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that defendant British Airways violated its frequent flyer program contract by imposing unlawful fuel surcharges on rewards flights

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets prepared by non-testifying, consulting experts

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where district court had authorized limited discovery on the issue of standing, and parties disagreed on scope and method of search of data, magistrate judge concluded that the most efficient method was through the appointment of a special master as it would (1) permit a technical expert to review all the data in a timely and effective manner, (2) limit collateral attacks and claims of bias that were likely to result if either party conducted the search, and (3) protect any interests that parties not before the court might have, given plaintiffs’ claims that the data contains private information; magistrate judge recommended appointment of special master and further recommended using Google’s ?Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal? for selection of the special master, development of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Jackson Family Wines, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., No. 11-5639 EMC (JSC), 2014 WL 595912 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions, where defendants never issued a litigation hold on marketing employee’s documents, never spoke to her about preserving documents, inexplicably deleted image of the her laptop six months after receiving the image from IBM pursuant to defendant?s ?leaver?s process,? waited over six months before notifying the court or plaintiffs about the destruction, and worse, made numerous representations to the court that consistently and vehemently sought to reassure the court that production of the employee?s documents was complete and irreproachable

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing image of departing marketing employee’s e-mail and other ESI

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681035 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2014 WL 4681403) but sustained two of plaintiffs? objections to Google?s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal, ruling that the search should include not only each plaintiff?s network from which communications may have been sent, but also any other network on which plaintiffs? communications might have been received, and that plaintiffs should see the results of the special master?s searches in order to provide the special master with feedback to aid in subsequent searches

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Network Cargo Sys. U.S.A., Inc. v. Pappas, No. 13 C 9171, 2014 WL 1856773 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where e-discovery consultant jointly retained by parties reported that three previously undisclosed flash drives had been connected to former employee’s personal computers during the relevant time period, court agreed with plaintiff that consultant should be allowed to image and review the three flash drives but ruled that costs of such review would be borne by plaintiff given the likely limited usefulness of the search

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drives and other electronic devices used by former employee

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

Tag:Keyword Search