Motion to Compel – Page 110 – Electronic Discovery Law

Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District Court sustained plaintiff?s objection to magistrate judge?s discovery order to the extent that factual findings omitted consideration of an exhibit submitted with plaintiff?s motion, which constituted evidence of defendant?s past possession of email which should have been produced in response to a particular discovery request (the exhibit was an email that discussed at least one prior email which was not produced); court remanded to magistrate judge issue of whether to compel further response or production in response to that particular discovery request

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted claims relating to prison’s Kosher Meal Program

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied discovery motion because counsel’s exchange of emails did not satisfy Rule 37 meet and confer requirement; notwithstanding such denial, court found that defense counsel’s email attaching additional documents and advising that there were no other responsive documents did not satisfy the letter or spirit of court’s prior discovery order or the federal rules; court ordered defendant to prepare written response in accordance with Rule 34(b) and pay sanctions of $500 to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

White v. Potter, 2007 WL 1207205 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that certain representations of the Postal Service regarding the ineffectiveness or impossibility of additional searching for responsive documents and ESI be documented and attested to by sworn testimony, in order to lay a solid foundation upon which court could decide motion to compel and/or any future motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for clarification and ruled that defendants would be permitted to conduct limited ex parte interviews with plaintiff’s former employee relating solely to particular database at issue, including the underlying functioning of the Advantx database and how Heartland, in particular, used that database and any custom-designed reports which Heartland may have developed; defendants were also free to ask former employee to operate the version of Heartland’s Advantx program and the Advantx database that Heartland produced in this case and were free to ask him to run searches using the program and to prepare any customized reports defendants may request from the database

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Interviews with former employee re database used by plaintiff

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced no evidence or description of its attempt to engage in a “reasonable inquiry” under FRCP 26 to discover and produce the requested information, other than the general observation that finding the information would be difficult, and where issue of numerosity was important issue for class certification, court ordered defendant to produce information and if it failed to immediately undertake good faith effort to do so, court would allow plaintiff and his counsel ?to inspect in a reasonable manner the Defendant’s files and records, including electronically stored information, on these issues?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding number of individuals who received particular letter from defendant collection agency

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 2007 WL 1192401 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel a more detailed answer to interrogatory seeking information about the “location” of electronically stored information, but ordered defense counsel to immediately provide plaintiff’s counsel with further information about its answer to the interrogatory “and any other information pertaining to electronic discovery issues”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, specific performance

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2007 WL 4171627 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Commenting on various discovery disputes that were unripe for decision, court stated that it agreed that, to the extent plaintiff requested production of entire hard drives from the computers of persons involved in the decision-making process, that the request was ?much too broad,? and stated: ?The Court relies upon litigants to identify responsive documents, wherever they may be located, and to produce them. If, through deposition or otherwise, Mr. Moore learns that searches for documents have been less then thorough and that there may be additional documents located on hard drives or at other places within Abbott’s system, he should first request that an additional search be undertaken. If that produces no documents, he may take discovery on the details of any additional search. If he is dissatisfied with that process, he may apply to the Court for additional relief.?

Nature of Case: Age discrimination in rehiring process

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of key players

Tag:Motion to Compel