Local Rule – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ of certiorari and quashed lower court?s order compelling petitioner?s production of her hard drives and SIM card for inspection by respondent where there was no evidence of destruction of data or threat of destruction sufficient to support such an order, where the order did not protect petitioner against disclosure of confidential or privileged materials because petitioner was provided no opportunity to review materials prior to production, and where there were less intrusive means to acquire the data sought

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, cell phone (SIM card)

Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order finding defendants in contempt, ordering their immediate production of outstanding discovery and establishing facts sufficient to satisfy 2 of the 4 elements of plaintiff?s liability claim where defendants failed to timely produce relevant discovery in violation of the trial court?s order and provided no satisfactory explanation for such failure, and where the trial court determined that defendants were ?hiding? discoverable information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from alleged product defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Aponte-Navedo v. Nalcom Chem. Co., 268 F.R.D. 31 (D.P.R. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s first motion to compel, the court found that while information regarding defendant?s information technology department and the hardware and software used by defendant is discoverable, plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and the court could not compel responses to the interrogatories as drafted but ordered defendants to identify the computer program or software used to created or transmit the already produced documents and for defendants to produce native documents with metadata intact

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding defendant’s information technology department, ESI

State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant?s forensic expert?s access to the hard drives seized from defendant was limited by protective order which allowed access only in a county building, using county equipment, the Supreme Court affirmed reversal of defendant?s conviction for 20 counts of possession of child pornography on the grounds that he was denied meaningful access to the hard drives and held that the appropriate test ?under these circumstances? was the ??overwhelming untainted evidence test? to demine whether a trial court?s erroneous ruling requires reversal?

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography and related charges

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives seized from defendant

People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Reversing the order of the trial court, the Supreme Court established 5 part test to challenge the issuance of a pretrial subpoena and quashed the subpoenas issued by defendant where, by ordering the relevant individuals to submit their computers to inspection by defendant?s expert, the trial court ?improperly converted the subpoenas into the functional equivalent of search warrants? and where defendant failed to establish any factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the emails sought existed or that they contained material evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Contents of hard drives

State v. Norris, 236 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where State refused to produce images to be used against defendant in court and, to avoid being subject to subpoena, gave possession of the evidence to the federal government who was not subject to subpoena, the appellate court granted defendant?s petition for discretionary review, stayed the trial court?s proceedings, and held that the Adam Walsh Act (a federal statue restricting copying and distribution of image of child pornography in federal court proceedings) does not preempt state law requiring full disclosure of the State?s evidence; the case was remanded for further proceedings

Nature of Case: Sex offenses against minors

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, copies of electronic images

In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to produce communications between himself and nearly forty individuals where such discovery was not narrowly tailored to avoid the inclusion of ?tenuous information irrelevant to the establishment of jurisdiction? (the subject of petitioner?s special appearance) and held that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special master to conduct a forensic examination of petitioner?s hard drive where there was no showing that petitioner had defaulted in his discovery obligations, where there was no showing that a search of the hard drive would recover relevant information (particularly in light of petitioner?s use of web-based email), where the special master was appointed without following the procedures called for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, where the special master?s broad authorization to search the hard drives (including the authority to choose search terms) amounted to an ?impermissible fishing expedition?, and where the trial court required no showing of the feasibility of retrieving the data by the party requesting the search

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Artie?s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1578251 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 7, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s response to plaintiffs? discovery requests encompassed as many as 20 supplemental responses over 5 years, including the production of 1,487,824 pages of electronically unsearchable ESI 5 years after plaintiffs? first request (which plaintiffs paid to convert to a searchable format), court found defendant?s efforts ?did not represent a good faith effort to comply with the rules of practice or the case management orders of this court? and violated ? 13-14(a) of the Practice Book and accordingly ordered sanctions including allowing re-deposition of witnesses at defendant?s cost, reimbursement of plaintiffs for conversion costs, and payment of plaintiffs? attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Tag:Local Rule