Local Rule – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Culp v. Alabama, CR-13-1039, 2014 WL 6608543 (Ala. Crim. App Nov.21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In his appeal of a domestic violence conviction, Culp claimed that emails between himself and the victim were improperly admitted into evidence and were never properly authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4), Ala. R. Evid.. Alabama?s Rule 901(b)(4), which is identical to the federal version, provides that evidence can be authenticated by ?[d]istinctive characteristics and the like,? including ?[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.? The court ruled that the emails were properly authenticated because each email contained Culp?s photograph, a screen name that he used, and many of the emails concluded with Culp?s initials. Additionally, the emails contained drug references that were uniquely used by Culp and the victim.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1396, 2014 WL 4925698 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court did not err in ordering that adverse inference instruction be given to jury as to contents of particular file where plaintiff had notice that file, which was within plaintiff?s control, was relevant to pending litigation, it attempted to refer to contents of file in support of motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff?s explanation for loss of the file was pretextual and not reasonable; appellate court reversed trial court?s decision to impose ultimate sanction of dismissal because record did not support conclusion that plaintiff willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with trial court?s orders, since dismissal rested on conduct that did not relate to court-ordered discovery and in most instances occurred prior to the first discovery order; appellate court vacated trial court?s award of attorneys? fees in favor of defendant and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of reasonable expenses because the basis for the award was unclear and the award appeared to include other fees and costs unrelated to the particular discovery motion for which they were awarded

Nature of Case: Suit to enforce obligations arising out of promissory notes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, spreadsheets

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Altercare Inc. v. Clark, No. 12CA010211, 2013 WL 3356577 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve plaintiff?s work computer at a time when litigation should have been reasonably foreseeable (because plaintiff?s employment ended under ?contentious? circumstances and because plaintiff was an attorney) and despite receipt of a specific written request for preservation, the trial court did not err in dismissing defendant?s claims against the plaintiff as a sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work computer / computer hard drive

In re Christus Health S.E. Texas, 399 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Denial of motion to compel documents reflecting deceased patient?s children?s purchases and calls on the day the patient underwent his at-issue procedure was no abuse of discretion where the request for production was not sufficiently limited in time and was therefore overly broad; request for all posting to social media regarding the patient or his death was also not limited in time and thus ?overly broad on its face? and trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to compel

Nature of Case: Health care liability

Electronic Data Involved: Documents reflecting purchases and calls on a particular day; Facebook/social media postings

In re Waste Management of Texas, —S.W.3d—, 2013 WL 203603 (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied petition for mandamus relief from order compelling re-production of ESI in native format with metadata where Waste Management failed to establish that the order would result in undue burden, among other things; in its analysis of undue burden, the court concluded that a request for production in a ?reasonable manner? was a sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a party ?specify the form? in which ESI should be produced (rule 196.4) and that the estimated expense of $5,500.00 to accomplish reproduction did not pose an undue burden and reasoned, in part, that the order was not unduly burdensome because of Waste Management?s ?conscious decision? to remove metadata from the original production; opinion also addressed Waste Management?s claim that the matters to be disclosed included trade secrets, its claim that the order was overbroad, issues related to the preservation of claims for appeal, and the question of whether Waste Management?s arguments related to cost allocation could adequately be addressed on appeal

Nature of Case: Petition for writ of mandamus

Hull v. WTI, Inc.,—S.E.2d—, 2013 WL 2996191 (Ga. Ct. App. June 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants produced 156,000 documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business but where the documents were insufficiently organized and only the documents? indexes and not the documents themselves were text searchable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the production was not consistent with Defendants? discovery obligations; appellate court noted that trial court did not hold that parties are prohibited from producing documents as kept in the ordinary course of business but rather than in this instance, ?under these circumstances,? the production was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, trade secret misappropriations, and “other business tort claims” and counterclaims

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy and miscellaneous ESI (e.g., email)

Tag:Local Rule