Motion to Compel – Page 111 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hsieh v. Nicholson, 2007 WL 2438315 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding any request for spoliation sanctions unwarranted, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of emails where defendant made adequate showing that, after reasonable search and inquiry, he was unable to locate requested emails, plaintiff submitted no contrary evidence, and plaintiff identified no flaws in defendant’s search methods

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email plaintiff claimed was sent in 2000

Cambrians for Thoughtful Dev., U.A. v. Didion Milling, Inc., 2007 WL 5618671 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff?s claims that work product protection extended only to documents prepared in anticipation of the ongoing litigation, court denied motion to compel email strings between attorney and employees of defendant prepared in anticipation of government enforcement action, especially where enforcement action and ongoing litigation were closely related, as was the case here

Nature of Case: Violations of Clean Air Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court awarded $22,371 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with earlier motion to compel that court granted on November 14, 2006; court further ordered that plaintiff’s second motion to compel relating to the same issues would be set for hearing

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

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Silipos, Inc. v. Bickel, 2007 WL 1180571 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed plaintiff to identify ?the lowest-paid employee of the data forensics company who is (a) knowledgeable about the process by which the data was extracted from defendant?s computer, and (b) able to give a deposition? by court?s deadline; court further ruled that defendant would be permitted to depose that employee for up to four hours, provided that defendant must pay for employee’s time at same hourly rate that had been billed to plaintiff; court encouraged counsel to take the deposition by telephone

Nature of Case: Misappropriation, breach of loyalty

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted documents recovered from defendant’s computer

Pace v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced requested work orders in .pdf format and then in other electronic formats in attempts to resolve plaintiff’s complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions since plaintiff could not show that production request called for any specific format and court could not conclude that defendant had failed to meet such request

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work orders

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greystone Servicing Corp., 2007 WL 4179864 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Overruling defendant’s relevancy objections to various interrogatories, court ordered defendant to serve full and complete answers to various interrogatories, including one that asked: “Identify any documents, data or other information that relate to or reference the subject matter of this litigation, that have been deleted, physically destroyed, discarded, damaged, or overwritten, whether pursuant to a document retention policy or otherwise.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Potentially deleted data

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted

Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets

Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports

Palgut v. City Of Colo. Springs, 2007 WL 1238730 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that defendant’s failure to identify certain backup tapes in its initial disclosures was inadvertent and was not intentional, willful, or wanton, court ruled that defendant need not produce such backup tapes because production would be unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information; court further found that inadvertent disclosures of protected work product by each of the parties did not effect waiver and prohibited defendant from using or referring to any ?embedded data? contained in plaintiff?s discovery requests and responses

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes and embedded data

Tag:Motion to Compel