Motion to Compel – Page 27 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

CP Salmon Corp. v. Pritzker, —F. Supp. 3d.—,No. 3:16-cv-00031-TMB, 2017 WL 744022 (D. Alaska Feb. 24, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Applying Fed. R. Evid. 502, court found Defendants? inadvertent inclusion of privileged information in the Administrative Record did not waive privilege where declarations of persons with ?sufficient personal knowledge? established the inadvertence of the inclusion where, in light of the multiple levels of review of the documents and the relevant circumstances including the ?sheer number of pages and compressed timeframe,? the court found Defendant had undertaken reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and where Defendants took action to rectify the error within three weeks of the disclosure

Nature of Case: Administrative law

Electronic Data Involved: Administrative Record

Rutledge-Plummer v. SCO Family of Servs., No. 15-CV-2468 (MKB) (SMG), 2017 WL 570765 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiff also sought production of all emails between 8 named individuals dating from August 1, 2013 to the present (December 2016). The court found the scope of this request (lacking any search terms or subject matter restrictions) was too burdensome when weighed against the potential benefit of production. Plaintiff narrowed her request to docs that related to her and limited the date range during oral argument, however the court found that this was still too broad and too close to the close of discovery to be permitted. Furthermore, Defendant had already produced emails relating to Plaintiff from most of the 8 custodians and had written to Plaintiff suggesting she propose search terms if she sought additional discovery. Plaintiff?s counsel, whose representation started after Defendant?s letter to Plaintiff, did not review Defendant?s earlier discovery responses and waited 10 months before requesting the additional discovery (using the overbroad parameters). The court denied Plaintiffs request except for certain documents referenced in depositions that were not produced. The court also denied Plaintiffs overly broad request for ?all documents pertaining to policies, procedures, and guidelines related to Defendant?s computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media? as too burdensome.

Nature of Case: Motion to Compel in employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wilson v. Washington, No. C16-5366 BHS, 2017 WL 518615 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s concerns regarding Defendants production, characterized by the court as ?thousands of pages of unorganized documents,? the court reasoned that ?Rule 33(d) does not supplant a party?s duty to adequately label and identify responsive documents under Rule 34,? that courts have recognized that production of documents as kept in the usual course of business ?may require the producing party to include different identifying information according to the type of document or file produced,? and that ?the most recent? court decisions have held that both Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) apply to the production of ESI and concluded that Defendant?s response fell short of its duties under 34(b)(2)(E) and 33(d)(1) and stated that ?[s]ome form of further organization or specification is required to signify that they have provided ?rationally organized productions??

Electronic Data Involved: Unorganized ESI

Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hawaii Nut & Bolt, Inc., No. 15-00245 ACK-KSC, 2017 WL 80248 (D. Hawai?I Jan. 9, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court reserved ruling on request for re-production of ESI where parties were ordered to confer, or, more specifically, to ?put their respective IT representative sin contact to see if an understanding can be reached about the format in which the ESI can be produced, as well as the related metadata (if any such metadata exists).?; in its analysis, court stated: ?ESI must be produced in the form in which it is maintained in the ordinary course of business, and if this includes metadata, the metadata must also be provided to Safeway.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

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