Motion to Compel – Page 119 – Electronic Discovery Law

Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it ?difficult to imagine? that defendant did not possess any responsive electronic or paper documents, plaintiff submitted no information upon which to question defendant?s representation and court had no basis to compel production; court instead required defendant to supplement discovery responses unconditionally representing that no responsive documents were in its possession, custody or control

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records identifying vacant positions at GM plant

Muro v. Target Corp., 243 F.R.D. 301 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of documents listed on defendants? privilege log, faulting among other things Target?s failure to identify and describe separately on its privilege log each allegedly privileged message within a string of email communications

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

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Peak Interests, LLC v. Tara Hills Villas, Inc., 2007 WL 2993817 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff objected to producing laptop because it contained irrelevant confidential or proprietary information and promised to ?provide all requested data, in the electronic format in which it was created,? but production was not forthcoming, and, despite promise to do so plaintiff did not submit affidavit from computer consultant affirming that efforts to retrieve responsive information from laptop had been unsuccessful, court ordered plaintiff to deliver laptop to defense counsel for physical inspection and copying by a neutral third party; court restricted access to any non-responsive information retrieved to counsel of record, their experts, and necessary support staff

Nature of Case: Lease dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Wiley v. Paulson, 2007 WL 7059722 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel metadata associated with hard copy emails where government established the metadata was not reasonably accessible because of substantial and prohibitive burden and cost; court denied motion without prejudice leaving room for plaintiff to re-file her motion and establish a factual bases for her demand and noted that if such a motion were granted in future, plaintiff would bear the cost

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata associated with hard copy emails

Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court awarded plaintiff $47,970 in sanctions representing attorney’s fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing motion to compel discovery of Wyeth’s adverse event database and production of prior versions of certain reports and source documents; court had earlier granted plaintiff and her expert supervised access to defendant’s database

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database and source documents for certain reports

Nichani v. United Tech. Corp., 2006 WL 1102761 (D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of all documents prepared by four trial witnesses regarding accident investigation, as well as all email between or among them regarding the same matter, where discovery was closed and plaintiff had long known that four witnesses had potentially relevant information and plaintiff never followed up on general production requests nor sought discovery from witnesses directly; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative motion in limine precluding testimony of four individuals

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and to produce all documents by certain date; court further ordered defendant to certify, in writing, that it had performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff’s document requests

Nature of Case: False Claim Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 3388502 (D. Kan. Nov. 21, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of email from over 450 employees, finding the request unduly burdensome and not necessary or appropriate for class certification discovery; search was estimated to cost between $600,000 and $1,181,700, and the 21 search terms selected by plaintiffs were likely too common (e.g., ?dollars,? ?complaint,? and ?services?)

Nature of Case: Consumer class action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion to Compel