Motion to Compel – Page 109 – Electronic Discovery Law

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant “deliberately and stubbornly refused to produce the most basic information about its Ohio contacts and has likely destroyed much of that information after it put those contacts directly at issue,” magistrate judge denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as least drastic discovery sanction and awarded plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of: (1) electronic data used to answer interrogatories, (2) information systems organizational charts, (3) policies and records regarding electronic data, electronic backup, electronic data retention and destruction, finding that the requests could lead to relevant evidence regarding what efforts defendant made to preserve ESI, since plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to produce ESI with its initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI used to answer interrogatories; backup and retention policies

Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff contended that defendant had not thoroughly searched its electronic storage network or devices for relevant documents, court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to conduct and document a further comprehensive search since plaintiff failed to cite authority for proposition that court should enforce plaintiff?s subjective notion of how defendant should conduct discovery: ?Defendant is under a duty to produce all relevant documents. Defendant is not under a duty to comply with every discovery procedure requested by Plaintiff.?

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where former employee admitted using file shredder program on his NSA-issued laptop before returning it, and evidence showed use of file shredder program on competitor-issued laptop computer, court found defendants? conduct was ?egregious? and amounted to spoliation but denied plaintiff?s request for entry of default judgment; court instead ordered production of computer hard drive for further examination, dismissed defendants? counterclaims, and ordered defendants to pay attorneys? fees and expenses incurred as a result of defendants? misconduct

Nature of Case: Seller of computer hardware and software sued former employee and competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 879683 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond with discovery requests, or provide an index, and to submit declarations by qualified computer technicians or forensic experts setting forth specific details of any lost or destroyed data or damaged hard drives; court reserved the option to appoint a neutral computer forensic expert as a special master to investigate and assess any claim by defendants that their computer servers or hard drives were damaged during the seizures or that electronic records were lost or destroyed

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, hard drives

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. American Viatical Servs., LLC, 2007 WL 3492762 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tag:Motion to Compel