Motion to Compel – Page 112 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Franks v. Creighton Univ., 2007 WL 4553938 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court sustained defendant’s objection to interrogatories seeking ?voluminous information? regarding University’s computer systems, email systems, software configurations, system maintenance, and the like as being “beyond overbroad,” finding that cost of auditing Creighton University’s entire computer system was not justified by the possibility that “plaintiff might discover tidbits of information possibly related to this lawsuit”

Nature of Case: Claim arising under Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information about university’s computer systems and email systems

In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Kmart’s failure to implement litigation hold and “woefully insufficient” efforts to retrieve responsive information did not warrant spoliation sanctions on present record and would be denied without prejudice to creditor’s renewing it in the future should evidence support it; court awarded creditor portion of attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered Kmart, to the extent it had not already done so, to perform a systematic search of all files on certain drives and produce responsive material to counsel within 14 days of order

Nature of Case: Creditor asserted breach of contract and other claims against Chapter 11 debtor in possession

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for access to defendant’s computer hard drives because computer content was not inextricably related to the basis of the lawsuit, defendant had represented that it conducted reasonable search of its computer hard drives for responsive information and moving party could point to only two missing emails out of thousands that were produced, and fact discovery had closed

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 773722 (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ordered production and inspection of defendants’ computer, but had also entered a protective order governing such production and inspection, court declined to sanction defendants and found that the most “just manner” to apportion fees and costs was for each of the parties to pay their own

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claimed defendants wrongfully disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential medical information stored on a computer hard drive by placing the computer on the curb for trash disposal

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive of subject computer

Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant showed that there were more than 200 million sales transactions contained in database and that it would be necessary to create a special software program to capture the information requested by plaintiffs and translate the information into a meaningful and readable format, court sustained defendant?s objections of burdensomeness and overbreadth and denied motion to compel; court would allow plaintiff to serve new, more narrowly tailored requests for production but would first require parties to confer in good faith to discuss the form in which ESI should be produced and how to ameliorate the costs attendant to production of such information

Nature of Case: Third party breach of contract and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Tag:Motion to Compel