Motion to Compel – Page 45 – Electronic Discovery Law

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, NOo. 5:14-CV-5262, 2015 WL 11120890 (W.D. Ark. April 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to produce in native format but Defendant then loaded its information into a hosted database and indicated that Plaintiff could view the docs, including some metadata, but could only receive production of specified documents in a static image format, at a cost for each such ?exportation,? and where Defendant argued such production complied with Rule 26(f) and that the data was in a reasonably usable form, the court held the parties to their agreement, reasoning that ?[s]imply put, native format means native format? and also rejected Defendant?s security concerns, agreeing with Plaintiff that production on an external hard drive was acceptable; court?s order stated that parties would ?produce discovery from electronic or computer-based media directly to each other in native format, on external hard drives whenever possible.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where ?Defendants provided Plaintiff with fully searchable documents, sortable by metadata fields, in a folder structure organized by custodian,? the court found this was ?sufficient to satisfy the requirements for document production of ESI under Rule 34? and declined to compel Defendants to provide an index

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death during medical procedure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tyler v. City of San Diego, No. 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB, 2015 WL 1955049 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel documents where Defendant rejected Plaintiffs? proposed search terms and protocols, but did not use search terms and protocols it deemed reasonable to produce those documents that were readily accessible and admittedly relevant. Court also refused to limit the locations Defendant was required to search for relevant documents saying, ?The City is not excused from conducting a reasonable search for all non-privileged responsive documents in City?s custody and control, regardless of location.?

Nature of Case: Sexual Harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Boxer F2 L.P. v. Flamingo West, Ltd. No. 14?cv?00317?PAB?MJW, 2015 WL 2106101 (D. Colo. May 04, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court said it appreciated defendants? decision to ultimately comply with its discovery obligations by producing 16,600 pages of accounting records the day after the motions hearing on the matter, but said that the untimely disclosure did not have any bearing on the fact that defendants did not allow plaintiffs access to all of their accounting records and altered those records to which they did allow access to conceal material information without valid justification. Finding that defendants acted in bad faith for having failed to comply with three court orders compelling discovery and having done so knowingly and intentionally, court granted motion for sanctions, including adverse inferences and cost and fees.

Nature of Case: Lease

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting records

D.O.H. v. Lake Cent. Sch. Corp., No. 2:11?cv?430, 2015 WL 736419 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 20, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff responsible for his prior counsel?s deficient Facebook production, saying he ?voluntarily chose his prior counsel and cannot avoid the consequences for his attorney?s discovery failures? and also responsible for his current counsel?s deficient Twitter production, district court granted Motion for Sanctions filed by defendants in part and ordered plaintiff to produce the entirety of his Twitter profile with redactions for privilege and relevance and to produce a log for any social networking information withheld and to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney?s fees associate with the discovery dispute.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Social media postings

Am. Fed. Of Musicians of the U.S. and Canada v. Skodam Films, LLC, NO. 3:15-mc-122-M-BN, 2015 WL 7771078 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court concluded non-party?s objections to the at-issue subpoena were subject to Rule 34 requirements for objections and, addressing the non-party?s claims of overbreadth and burden, modified the subpoena upon finding that the document requests were ?facially overbroad and pose[d] an undue burden? because they called for the production of ?apparently every document? related to the making of the at-issue movie

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Third party discovery, including ESI

Malibu Media v. Ricupero, No. 2:14?cv?821 2015, 2015 WL 4273463 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

A.M.castle & Co. v. Byrne, No. H-13-2960, 2015 WL 4756928 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought ?physical access? to Defendant?s electronic devices based on the belief that Plaintiff failed to perform a thorough search, the court overruled objections to denial of the motion where Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant was in possession of any of Plaintiff?s company documents and where Defendant responded adequately to discovery, including hiring an outside party to perform forensic examination of the computers and utilizing hundreds of search terms proposed by the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of employee confidentiality agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Arkansas River Power Auth. v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-00368-CMA-NYW, 2015 WL 2128312 (D. Colo. May 5, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing several disputes, court concluded that parties having agreed on an ESI production ?must only comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii)? and that the question was therefore whether the defendant ?produced its ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. The rule clearly requires one or the other, but not both.?; where defendant produced majority of its documents in a reasonably usable form (TIFF), court declined to compel production of additional metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel