Motion to Compel – Page 126 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 WL 3050860 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that defendants did not produce all requested electronic documents and that defense counsel had not conducted a proper inquiry to determine whether or not all electronic documents were produced, court ordered defendants to verify that all requested electronic documents were produced and to produce any electronic documents not yet provided

Nature of Case: Fraud and related claims stemming from BART construction subcontracts

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of an exact image of the hard drive of defendant’s personal computer and instead ordered that the examination of and production from defendant’s personal computer proceed on the terms spelled out in defendant’s responses to the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: PC hard drive

MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to quash as overbroad plaintiff?s subpoena to current employer of defendant which sought, among other things: documents and information describing any type of work that defendant performed, including solicitations and proposals, all documents and communications (including emails) he sent or received, and every computer or electronic equipment and he touched, including all backups, as well as extensive information about current employer’s practices and policies regarding document retention and computer backup; court further granted motion to compel defendant to produce similar information; parties to observe confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Action by employer against former employee based upon non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and electronic equipment “touched” by former employee; email

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ appeal of magistrate’s order and would permit plaintiffs to raise evidentiary objections to certain evidence at trial, notwithstanding terms of pretrial order which required in limine motions to be filed by certain date, since defendants’ tardy production of hundreds of responsive emails and/or non-compliance with discovery orders made it impossible for plaintiffs to raise those objections as motions in limine

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where Spain failed to place a timely and adequate litigation hold in its agencies and ministries, court found that Spain violated its discovery obligations under the FRCP and observed that relevant email and electronic records probably no longer existed; court granted defendant’s motion to compel and invited defendant to to file an application requesting the relief, remedy, or sanction it deemed appropriate in light of the court?s findings

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic records

Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of order extending discovery cut off, confirming that defendant would be allowed to engage in limited discovery in order to rebut plaintiff’s evidence of software usage documented in plaintiff’s spreadsheets, and to explore the source data for entries on the spreadsheets

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought damages stemming from defendant’s use of plaintiff’s claims software

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Tag:Motion to Compel