Local Rule – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

McNabb v. City of Overland Park, No. 12-CV-2331 CM/TJJ, 2014 WL 1493124 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to produce additional 10,189 responsive emails where plaintiff did not identify any specific discovery request for which she sought to compel production, or any specific objection thereto that she claimed to be invalid, and defendant had already produced five categories of emails totaling over 36,000 documents; court advised that plaintiff must present something more than mere speculation that search of 14 custodians’ email files using 35 proposed search terms was likely to reveal additional responsive emails, and further noted that, on its face, search term list was overly broad and likely to capture many emails having nothing to do with issues in case

Nature of Case: Sexual discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8-13-cv-01537-ODW(JEMx), 2014 WL 2865786 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court adopted plaintiff’s source-code printing provision in its entirety, rejecting as too restrictive defendant’s proposed limitations that parties may print only that source code ?necessary? to prepare court filings and pleadings, noting that the “reasonably necessary” standard had solid foundation in district?s model protective order, and rejecting as arbitrary defendant?s proposed numerical restrictions: 30-page threshold beyond which the source code printing would be presumed to be excessive, and a total cap on source code printing at the greater of 250 pages or 10 percent of the source code; court also adopted in full plaintiff?s proposed language regarding the use of source code for depositions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

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

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, No. 12SA287, 2013 WL 1557840 (Colo. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of Kickapoo Reservation in Kan. v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint Dist. No. 7, No. 06-CV-2248-CM-DJW (D. Kan. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained District’s objection that it did not have duty to produce documents from persons no longer associated with the District who were not parties to the litigation, as plaintiff failed to establish that District had the necessary control over requested documents or that District had legal right to obtain such documents on demand from former District board members, staff or employees; court further denied motion to compel forensic mirror imaging of computers and other electronic devices personally owned by current and former District board members, employees and staff, as District already produced forensic mirror images of two District computers, District lacked possession or control of personally-owned computers, there was no showing that any personally-owned computers of board members, employees and staff were used by those persons for District business, and court had significant concerns about intrusiveness of request and privacy rights of individuals to be affected

Nature of Case: Dispute over water rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Out of the Box Developers LLC v. Logicbit Corp., No. 10 CVS 8327, 2013 WL 3090303 (N.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)

EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. C-12-04306 JST (JSC), 2013 WL 2181584 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing parties? proposed departures from the court?s Model Protective Order, court approved protocol requiring Plaintiff?s reviewers to utilize an encrypted computer provided by Apple to conduct review of source code, including taking notes, and a ban on cell phones and other recording devices while reviewing source code (Apple promised to provide a land line); court declined to modify the Model Order?s provisions regarding printing source code, which place the burden of persuasion on the requesting party when a request for paper copies is challenged; court declined to include provision allowing Plaintiff to make electronic copies of source code and approved Defendant?s proposal requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding any electronic submission of source code; court approved provision requiring Plaintiff to return or destroy any documents containing source code at end of litigation

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: source code

Tag:Local Rule