Motion to Compel – Page 129 – Electronic Discovery Law

Harbuck v. Teets, 2005 WL 2510229 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion where, in course of discovery dispute, it ordered both parties to submit their copies of data to the district court’s Information Technology personnel to see if the material could be retrieved, and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel when court’s personnel had no problems retrieving the data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents

Padilla v. Price Toyota, 2005 WL 6209494 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of vehicle?s ?black box? where information sought was not available elsewhere and was necessary for expert analysis of airbag system despite defendants? arguments that data was irrelevant and unreliable and that retrieving the data would be unduly expensive because of need for technician to travel cross-country; regarding unreliability, court noted that a Daubert motion was not precluded in future

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Vehicle’s “black box”

Fryer v. Brown, 2005 WL 1677940 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Noting that a responding party “must cover the costs of gathering the requested item; not to cover the costs of reproduction absent a showing of good cause as to why the burden should be shifted,” court instructed plaintiff to provide hard copies of its website as defendant had requested, at defendant’s expense

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website pages

United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: In connection with criminal defendant’s request for certain emails and correspondence, court held that the term “government” included all agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the government and all subdivisions thereof and it was insufficient for Justice Department merely to state that certain documents were not in its possession and it was continuing to make inquiries; Justice Department ordered to immediately and by formal request in writing, demand that GSA conduct a thorough search and produce all relevant emails, including archived emails on employees’ hard drives

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice

Electronic Data Involved: Email and archived email

Export-Import Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 2005 WL 3078208 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court allowed reopening of discovery and ordered plaintiff to produce former employee’s personal journals that were relevant to parties’ dispute, where former employee revealed existence of journals in deposition taken during last week of discovery; court further granted defendant leave to subpoena former employee directly in the event plaintiff was unable to take possession of the journals

Nature of Case: Action to recover promissory note debt

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s personal journal maintained on home computer

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Okoumou v. Safe Horizon, 2005 WL 2431674 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Although plaintiff was free to pursue discovery of archived emails on obsolete email system, the extent to which those emails were discoverable and the allocation of costs to restore them would require further analysis; court directed plaintiff to notify the court if she intended to pursue the archived email

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email from obsolete email system

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., 2005 WL 3511085 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2005) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Deciding there should be a presumption in favor of finding inadvertence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents “recalled” by defendant under stipulated inadvertent production provision; court further advised that (1) production of documents without any privilege review whatsoever is not an inadvertent, but rather a purposeful, act unless the parties had an agreement otherwise; and (2) the purpose of the parties’ inadvertent production provision was not to allow the producing party to consciously change its mind post-production about whether or not to claim the privilege

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce American College of Radiology reports during certain time frame, to produce all information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, their computer systems, and, if requested by the United States, to make available for deposition persons with knowledge of the computer system maintained by hospital during certain time frame

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: All information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, defendants’ computer systems

Tag:Motion to Compel