Motion to Compel – Page 105 – Electronic Discovery Law

Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology

Bianco v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2008 WL 4661241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of defendant?s general counsel?s laptop for imaging despite testimony that the laptop had been used to create some of the documents at issue where there was no evidence of discovery misconduct, where defendant searched extensively for and produced documents responsive to plaintiff?s requests, and where the ?intrusive search? would likely lead to the disclosure of privileged and confidential information ; court noted that Rule 34 does not create ?a routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, emails

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a/ PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 5111184 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered electronically stored documents produced in native format in light of preference for such production in Rule 26 and where no obstacles to production were articulated; where plaintiff requested production of large volume of relevant documents and where deposition witness indicated that the information would be easily retrieved from defendant?s electronic database, court recognized potential burden to defendant and ordered production of sampling of documents to allow for determination of the need to produce the rest; court also ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary volume of production of documents related to cost where documents were necessary to address the accuracy of previously produced summary and thus production of all such documents was not required, where information was available in electronic format, though, defendants were ordered to produce it

Nature of Case: Predatory pricing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found defendant failed to establish burden of proving ESI was not reasonably accessible where testimony established the relevant computer system could b searched in-house with ?minimal? time spent and ordered defendant to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs; court ordered search of backup tapes without deciding the issue of reasonable accessibility where plaintiff established ?good cause? for why the tapes should be searched and ordered defendants to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/warranty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Relion v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2008 WL 5122828 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff ?did not pursue all reasonable means of preserving privilege? court found that attorney client privilege was waived when plaintiff unintentionally produced two privileged emails in hard copy despite conducting a privilege review and because plaintiffs failed to discover the production until revealed by defendants despite having both paper and electronic, text-searchable copies of the documents produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedford, 2008 WL 2080930 (N.D. Miss. May 13, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various disputed discovery requests, court overruled insurer?s overbroad and unduly burdensome objections to interrogatory seeking information about similar claims made against insurer within last ten years, and agreed with defendant that it was not necessary to rely on computer retrieval of relevant information, but on information provided by employees, and that there may be less expensive means of determining the existence of such information: ?For example, an e-mail to all Liberty Mutual employees asking if they recall any such claims or cases in the last ten years is a simple, inexpensive means of discovering whether any claims were ever made in Mississippi. Liberty Mutual has a duty to at least attempt to determine if information responsive to this interrogatory exists, if not by computerized search of files (a general search of a computer data base surely would be a start), then at least by inquiry of employees who may have relevant, discoverable information. At a minimum, a good faith effort is required.?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding similar claims made against insurer

Hightower v. Heritage Acad. of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Observing that defendant had not argued that requested emails were not reasonably accessible and had not otherwise demonstrated that production of emails by four identified individuals on single topic over four-year period was unduly burdensome, court rejected defendant?s overbreadth and burdensome objections and ordered defendant to produce responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails sent or received by four members of defendant’s Board of Trustees pertaining to plaintiff and/or her employment

Cantrell v. Cameron, 195 P.2d 659 (Colo. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding the court abused its discretion when it ordered production of a laptop for inspection but declined to incorporate restrictions or narrow scope of inspection and denied defendant?s motion for a protective order despite confidentiality concerns including attorney-client privilege and proprietary business information, appellate court vacated order and directed lower court to issue protective order limiting scope of inspection; court noted that while personal computers do implicate confidentiality issues requiring ?serious consideration of a person?s privacy interest,? ?a personal computer?s contents are not confidential by nature?

Nature of Case: Traffic accident resulting in personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4682226 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel where plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that requested emails existed and where defendant offered sworn testimony that all responsive document had been produced; court also denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff offered no evidence that allegedly spoliated materials existed; where defendant indicated its inability to locate a particular document but produced audio tapes detailing the contents, court declined to impose sanctions because plaintiffs offered no evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of evidence and because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice in light of alternative source for requested information

Nature of Case: Litigation concerning insurance company’s denial of benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel