Motion to Compel – Page 27 – Electronic Discovery Law

TetraVue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 14cv2021-W (BLM), 2017 WL 1008788 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce additional documents, supplement discovery responses, and remove non-responsive documents from their production. Plaintiff had not been able to obtain the entire underlying action file from former counsel, and argued they do not have actual control over the documents. The court found Plaintiffs did have ?possession, custody or control? of the file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (even though counsel had not been cooperative in turning the materials over) and granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of additional non-privileged and responsive documents. Plaintiffs were ordered to obtain the file and provide supplemental responses to Defendant?s RFPs. Defendant asserted Plaintiff?s previous production was a ?data dump? without an index (and contained numerous non-responsive documents), and did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant did not request a specific format and that they complied with the discovery order and produced their ESI in a proper format (PDF). Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant?s request to have Plaintiff organize their production based on RFPs would be disproportionate – the production was in date order, allowing Defendant to ?organize, index and search the data at a low cost and with little effort.? The court agreed, finding the production adequate and cited the advisory committee?s notes for Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (?contemplated that the parties requesting ESI would be able to organize it themselves?). Finally, the court denied Defendant?s motion for supplemented interrogatory responses, finding the Plaintiffs? responses adequate (the burden of finding the answer would be ?substantially the same for either party?).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Realpage, Inc., v. Enter. Risk Control, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00737, 2017 WL 1180420 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

Selective Ins. Co. of the Se. v. RLI Ins. Co., 5:12CV2126, 2017WL 1206036 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

Brand Servs., LLC v. Irex Corp., NO: 15-5712, 2017 WL 67517 (E.D. La. Jan. 5, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

View Case Opinion

Basra v. Ecklund Logistics, Inc., 8:16CV83, 2017 WL 1207482 (D. Neb., March 31, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

IDC Fin. Pub., Inc. v. Bonddesk Grp., LLC, No. 15-cv-1085-pp, 2017 WL 4863202 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

William C. Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., No. C17-5243-BHS, 2017 WL 4168502 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

View Case Opinion

B&R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa, Inc., No. 16-cv-01150-WHA (MEJ), 2017 WL 235182 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court found requested data was relevant to class certification but, where Defendant indicated that Plaintiff?s requests ?encompass [ ] tens of millions of transactions and weekly data for each of the more than 6 million merchants that accept American Express? that ?is scattered over at least 6 databases at American Express,? court agreed with Defendant that the requested discovery created an ?enormous burden? and therefore ordered sampling, in a size to be agreed upon by the parties at a court-ordered meet and confer

Nature of Case: class action

Electronic Data Involved: Chargeback-related data (ESI)

Bratcher v. Navient Sols., Inc., 249 F.Supp.3d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to examine plaintiff?s smartphone itself for the purpose of obtaining a log of blocked calls arguing that ?plaintiff is not entitled to recovery for any blocked calls,? the court noted that defendant had failed to provide legal basis for this position and that ?[T]here is no routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system. … absent a factual finding of some non-compliance with [the] discovery rules, direct access is unwarranted.? The court further noted that defendant made no effort to comply with the requirement for a proposal for the protection of privacy rights, the protection of privileged information, and the separation of irrelevant information during inspection. On this basis, the court found direct access to the cell phone unwarranted and denied defendant?s motion to compel.

Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone Call Block Records

Holick v. Burkhart ( No. 16-1188-JTM (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2017), 2017)

Nov 30 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiff did not specify whether any documents were being withheld in the course of making objections to discovery motions

Nature of Case: libel, assault, slander

Electronic Data Involved: documents and communications posted or stored on social media, e-mails

Keywords: “facially overbroad”, “anti-abortion”, “nearly two-decade time frame”, “provide any responsive information for the past seven (7) years”

View Case Opinion

Tag:Motion to Compel