Motion to Compel – Page 107 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to request seeking “[a]ny and all electronically stored information, documents, reports, logs and/or memorandums contained in any and all of the electronic databases and/or computer systems of Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Bruce Dixon, and Dana Phillips” as overbroad, unreasonably cumulative, and unduly burdensome, since the request imposed no limits (time or otherwise) on ESI requested; court allowed plaintiffs to revise request to include reasonable limitations and serve it by certain date

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where information requested was relevant to EEOC?s claim, and defendants failed to provide concrete substantiation of the alleged burden, either in terms of manpower, hours, or financial resources that would be required to compile it, court ruled that, even though EEOC requested information in electronic database form, defendants’ answers were not restricted by their electronic record-keeping system; court ordered defendants to make a good faith effort to compile supplemental information from all available sources

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records and information

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

In Re U-Haul Class Action Tammy Koceinda, 2008 WL 5071996 (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of emails sent between plaintiff, her attorney, and her husband, where husband was an attorney, although not the attorney of record, and where he acted as plaintiff?s ?personal attorney? and provided legal advice regarding ongoing litigation

Nature of Case: Class action breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2008 WL 4778133 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant/successor corporation acquired computer and server utilized by plaintiff/predecessor corporation in pre-acquisition operation of predecessor company but plaintiff asserted privilege as to certain pre-acquisition documents in response to subpoena from defendant, court ruled documents were protected by privilege, despite presence on acquired hardware, where plaintiff removed allegedly privileged and personal documents prior to defendant?s access and control of hardware and thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy; court ordered production of non-privileged materials and categorical privilege log and declined to sanction plaintiff for removal of documents from acquired hardware where plaintiff acted to preserve the documents and agreed to produce non-privileged material

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel