Motion to Compel – Page 122 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hardeman v. Amtrak/Caltrain R.R., 2006 WL 997378 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories, finding that defendant?s vague contention that interrogatories were burdensome and oppressive was unconvincing given its computerized database: “Without further evidence to the contrary, the Court believes that the alleged difficulty of distilling the requested information from the computerized database is overblown.”

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information contained in database

Advante Int?l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 1806151 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Motion for forensic examination of opposing party’s computer hard drives denied where movant failed to provide any details about how the examination would be conducted and did not present specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence sufficient to justify the relief requested; instead, court found appropriate the “compromise” suggested by plaintiff that its own attorneys personally review the computers to ensure that any additional responsive documents that may exist in readable form were produced

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and overruled defendants’ objections that terms “electronic databases,” “personnel related data,” “database,” “coded fields” and “data dictionaries” were vague and ambiguous, since plaintiffs had attempted to resolve any ambiguity by providing definitions in a separate letter and court’s own guidelines referred to The Sedona Conference? comprehensive glossary of terms related to electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request that defendants produce metadata for all records maintained in electronic form produced to date, where plaintiff did not demonstrate a particularized need for metadata, the parties had no agreement about the format of production of electronic files, and plaintiff did not seek metadata until months after defendants had produced hard copy and electronic copies of documents; if plaintiff still desired metadata, court suggested plaintiff identify specific documents for which it was needed

Nature of Case: Antitrust and anti-competitive conspiracy claims

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion to delay adjudication of summary judgment motion to allow further discovery where collection agency did not retain hard copies of collection letters but instead noted the nature and types of letters on a debtor overview report and saved copies of form letters, and where dispute existed over whether an exhibit submitted in support of defendant’s motion was an accurate reproduction of defendant’s initial communication to plaintiff or a fabrication

Nature of Case: Debtor sued collection agency under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer record of collection activity and form letters

Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 2006 WL 1792413 (6th Cir. June 28, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Sixth circuit affirmed dismissal of complaint as a discovery sanction under FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and the award of all attorney fees to defendants under 42 U.S.C. ? 1988, where plaintiffs “repeatedly touted and promised to produce critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence, then failed or refused to produce it; belatedly produced an incomplete collection of evidence; falsely stated that they had produced all the evidence ordered; deliberately withheld evidence; strained credulity by claiming that they gave away original tapes of critical conversations, keeping none for themselves, and made no effort to get copies; asserted a nonsensical privilege as a reason for failing to produce more or better evidence of defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements; agreed to seek permission from the state court to produce financial and accounting documents, but never did so; and so on”

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Audio and videotapes supporting plaintiffs’ claims

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where forensic inspection of plaintiff?s laptop and disks showed evidence of tampering, including: deleted files, system date and time manipulations, access histories showing that various relevant documents were accessed after court?s order and before plaintiff?s second deposition, and other fragments of relevant documents and emails that had not been produced, and plaintiff’s explanations “verge[d] on the absurd,” court found that plaintiff had engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct, dismissed complaint with prejudice, and invited defendant to submit an application for costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; drafts of plaintiff’s resume

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Given the tremendous volume of information accumulated in claims database and defendant’s claimed inability to segregate claims based on various attributes, court ordered parties to develop sampling protocol to obtain examples of claims files that involved issue similar to that in the litigation

Nature of Case: Reinsurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Claims database

Tag:Motion to Compel