Motion for Protective Order – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

Richards v. Hertz Corp., —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5503841 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the public contents of one plaintiff?s Facebook account established that it was ?reasonable to believe? that other relevant information may also be present but where lower court only directed plaintiff to produce certain relevant photographs, appellate court remanded with instruction that the court conduct in camera review of ?all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos? to determine which of those materials, if any, were relevant; as to a separate plaintiff where no showing of potential relevance was made, appellate court found lower court properly granted her motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

United States v. Warner, No. C 11-04181 LB, 2012 WL 6087193 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the government?s production of all communications between himself and the government, all documents concerning its debt collection policies, and information related to the government?s debt collection efforts related to his debt, the court found that the government?s burden argument was unpersuasive where it lacked specific information to support the claim and where, pursuant to the factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the burden did not outweigh the benefit of the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Student loan debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

King v. Rozek Co., No. 11-cv-01685-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 2884788 (D. Colo. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, based on discrepancies in certain witnesses? testimony, Plaintiff believed that relevant investigation notes/computer journal entries were created on a date later than the date alleged by the defendant, and where the creation date was relevant to the issues in the case, the court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel a forensic investigation of the computer on which the evidence was created, but sua sponte issued a protective order that would allow Plaintiff?s forensic investigator to make a mirror image of the at-issue computer but would limit his investigation to the question of when the notes were made or modified and which prohibited the investigator from accessing or viewing information not relevant to that discreet issue

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Millsaps v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., No. 10-84924, 2011 WL 6019220 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in a separate but similar case involving the same plaintiffs? counsel and defendant, defendant was previously prepared to produce the scanned contents of approximately 1300 boxes when the case settled, and where plaintiff in the present case (with the same plaintiffs? counsel) sought production of those documents in his case, and where the disagreement focused on which party should be allowed to search the documents for relevant information (because defendant felt that plaintiff?s search would identify all documents as relevant and plaintiff felt that defendant would not identify relevant documents that were not obviously relevant but nonetheless important), the court ordered the parties to confer to develop search terms and agreed, if necessary, to consider up to 100 disputed terms submitted by the parties

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, asbestos

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL 5438690 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Applying Washington State law, court held that return of employer-issued laptop containing attorney-client privileged information without asserting a claim of privilege as to those contents resulted in waiver of privilege; even where privilege was asserted as to certain contents prior to return of employer-issued laptop, privilege was waived where employer?s policies negated expectation of privacy, including as to web based email accessed on the laptop; court?s analysis applied four part test from In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of separation agreement, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Tag:Motion for Protective Order