Motion to Compel – Page 113 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected non-party’s claim that it was entitled to recover full amount of fees expended to retrieve, identify and review 25 project files sought by plaintiffs (estimated to be $28,950, including $18,750 in attorneys fees for 50 hours of review), since non-party should have reasonably anticipated being involved in the discovery process of subsequent litigation concerning the marketing/prescribing behavior it studied, the cost could be borne by the non-party as overhead, and cost was less than four fifths (4/5) of one percent of the revenue the non-party generated from work on Seroquel products

Nature of Case: Drug product liability class action

Electronic Data Involved: 25 electronically-maintained project files relating to market research that non-party Harris performed on behalf of AstraZeneca with respect to Seroquel

Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel on variety of e-discovery topics and ordered defendant to allow plaintiffs? expert reasonable access to (1) phone system and backup system for purpose of recovering inadvertently overwritten phone logs and (2) appropriate personal computers or computer network in order to search for particular documents; plaintiffs further allowed to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning defendant?s computer network, phone system, and document retention and destruction practices

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

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 Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)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

Bitler Inv. Venture II, LLC v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, 2007 WL 465444 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where principal of co-plaintiff forwarded 15 email exchanges with counsel to plaintiffs’ testifying expert witness, and expert witness produced them as part of his file even though he stated he did not consider them when forming his opinion, court ordered production of such emails under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and waste

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tag:Motion to Compel