Motion to Compel – Page 109 – Electronic Discovery Law

Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4111410 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel inspection of plaintiff’s personal computer by defendants’ expert for purpose of retrieving relevant documents and investigating cause of computer crash; court instead ordered plaintiff to produce all relevant documents from the computer, and if documents were unrecoverable, plaintiff must produce an affidavit from a qualified technology expert explaining the reasons for lack of recovery

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Benton v. Dlorah, Inc., 2007 WL 3231431 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to produce responsive emails, and if emails had been deleted, to produce for inspection her computer hard drive from which those emails were sent to allow defendants to use services of computer forensic specialist, if necessary, to retrieve them; request for sanctions denied without prejudice to a further request for a ?negative inference instruction? to be determined by trial judge

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email, hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer

Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying without prejudice plaintiff?s motion, based on spoliation of evidence, to strike defendants? answers or preclude defendants? use of office records to support their defenses; however, court did err in not granting alternative relief requested, i.e., compelling additional discovery, including depositions of certain witnesses, production of records, and inspection of computers, since such additional discovery was reasonably calculated to produce relevant and material evidence and defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Office computer hard drive and information regarding its destruction

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs. Inc., 2007 WL 5731934 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce emails alleged to contain too little relevant information to justify production costs, court declined to compel production unless defendant indicated willingness to bear 100% of cost, including privilege review; court indicated that upon defendant?s discovery of ?highly relevant, non-cumulative information,? court may require plaintiff to pay fraction of cost

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where corporate designee could not fully answer questions regarding certain topics listed in Rule 30(b)(6) notice pertaining to plaintiff?s computer servers, software, data storage and retention, or plaintiff?s efforts to search for responsive email and documents, and did not know ?exactly how [the e-discovery vendor] searched? plaintiff?s servers or ?what all was on? the CD that was produced to defendants, court found that witness was inadequately prepared and ordered plaintiff to produce a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) witness on those topics

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email; hardware and software; systems information

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it “bothersome” that it no attempt at all was made by some of the founders to search, even on a random basis, their personal or office emails, balancing the burden on the founders of conducting full email searches of their non-@hssh.org email accounts against the likelihood that such searches would recover few, if any, additional documents not already produced by Heartland, court declined to require founders to conduct any searches of their personal email accounts in responding to subpoenas

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal email accounts of plaintiff’s founders

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2007 WL 3275300 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where object of two prior orders granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel immediate backup and imaging of certain defendants’ computers was preservation of evidence, court denied plaintiff’s later motion for order adopting 170-word search protocol that was separate and apart from any particular discovery request, since prior orders did not “contemplate that ClearOne have carte blanche access to the electronic data filtered only by keyword searching and privilege objections”

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror images of hard drives

Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Tag:Motion to Compel