Key Insight: ESI does not need to be produced if it is from sources not reasonably accessible on account of undue burden or cost.
Nature of Case: medical fees
Electronic Data Involved: medicare documents, etc
Keywords: undue burden, not reasonably accessible, third party requests
Key Insight: Judges should weigh lesser sanctions before dismissing a case, but are not required to.
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Torts
Electronic Data Involved: Tax and bank statements
Keywords: failure to respond, discovery sanctions, discovery misconduct
Key Insight: communications that occurred outside of the mediation but involve the mediator are not protected by the mediation privilege
Nature of Case: Insurance Bad Faith
Electronic Data Involved: documents used in mediation that Defendant claim to be protected by mediation privilege
Keywords: mediation privilege, reconsideration, under seal
Key Insight: The Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Defendants? computer images. Defendants made their source code available to Plaintiffs who then identified comments made prior to the produced source code date. Defendants insisted the pre-July 2013 source code was destroyed when Plaintiffs? former employee became a full-time employee of Defendants. The Court found that Defendants provided a sufficient explanation of good faith destruction of pre-July 2013 code but that limited forensic imaging could recover important deleted materials. The Court held that a tailored examination by a third-party forensic expert of Defendants? computers is appropriate to determine whether the pre-July code is recoverable or to assist in cross-examination as to its destruction.
Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image
Key Insight: Court agreed with recommendation of magistrate judge and held costs incurred by a non-party for compliance with an order compelling production are reimbursable. The magistrate judge ordered the Non-Party to submit a cost estimate for reviewing the documents, preparing a privilege log and producing the non-privileged documents. The cost estimate submitted was over $120,000. Defendant then presented a pared down document request and the magistrate judge issued a Modified Subpoena. The Court accepted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and ordered Defendant to pay $14,174.32 for the costs to Non-Party of complying with the Modified Subpoena stating that Defendant ?was the recipient of the fruits of Non-Party[?s] labor.? The Court also agreed with the magistrate judge that non-parties are not protected by the work product doctrine.
Nature of Case: Non-party compensation for document production
Electronic Data Involved: emails and non-electronic documents
Key Insight: Plaintiff filed motion to compel the production of all computers or a forensic image of such computers of three former employees currently employed by Defendant. Plaintiff accused one employee, an informational technology specialist, of transferring files containing trade secrets and proprietary information to an external hard drive and later to his laptop furnished by Defendant. Plaintiff also sought the production of a forensic image of Defendant?s server. Defendant argued that direct investigation of these devices was too broad a scope and should be limited by an ?electronically stored information protocol.? The Court agreed that Plaintiff?s request was overly broad and disproportional and ordered both parties to submit a draft ESI protocol using key word searches so as to control costs and to keep discovery proportional to the needs of the case.
Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete agreement, Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Plaintiff?s spouse was killed in a tractor-trailer accident when he collided with another tractor-trailer driven by Defendant?s employee. Plaintiff claimed Defendant destroyed or failed to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of litigation and requested sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction to the jury. The Court found Plaintiffs did not establish Defendant intentionally destroyed evidence with a desire to suppress the truth. Some of the information did not exist, some was purged per standard practice and much of the material requested by Plaintiffs was provided to them from other sources. The Court denied Plaintiff?s motion with respect to its claim for spoliation. Plaintiffs also requested attorney?s fees and costs as a sanction for Defendant?s failure to produce certain documents. Defendants inadvertently omitted its 2012 income statement but produced those from four other years. The Court held that sanctions were not warranted.
Nature of Case: Tort (Tractor-trailer accident)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI including Driver logs, Qualcomm data, PeopleNet server data
Key Insight: In this case, the court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of over 600 documents previously produced with extensive non-responsive redactions applied. Defendants argued that the redactions were necessary to protect confidential business information that was not relevant to the underlying dispute and cited In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., 14-24009-CV-MORENO, 2016 WL 1460143 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2016), in support of their position. In Takata, the court allowed certain non-responsive redactions ?because of its concern that the documents contained competitively sensitive materials that may have been exposed to the public, despite protective orders.? In the present case, the court cited Burris v. Versa Prods., Inc., No. 07-3938 (JRT/JJK), 2013 WL 608742 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2013) for the propositions that non-responsive redactions are not explicitly supported by the federal rules and that allowing such redactions has the potential for abuse, where parties would be incentivized to ?hide as much as they dare.? The court further reasoned that Defendants did not assert any privilege or provide a ?compelling reason? for their ?extensive? redactions and that they failed to explain why the existing protective order did not provide adequate protection. Thus, the court concluded that it ?[did] not see a compelling reason to alter the traditionally broad discovery allowed by the rules by letting the defendants unilaterally redact large portions of their responsive documents on relevance grounds? and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where Defendant contended there was only one way to search the at-issue database but failed to explain why and where Plaintiffs noted Defendant?s failure to offer reasons why optical character recognition could not be used on the database, the court ?agree[d],? reasoning that parties might otherwise be encouraged to ?maintain inaccessible databases to limit their discovery obligations? and noted that Defendant may need to consult a third party vendor if necessary and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the issue
Nature of Case: Asbestos exposure liability
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.