Motion to Compel – Page 48 – Electronic Discovery Law

D.O.H. ex rel. Haddad v. Lake Cent. Sch. Corp., No. 2:11-CV-430, 2014 WL 174675 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following the rule set out in E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010), court ordered plaintiff to produce social media postings, messages, status updates, wall comments (etc.) for the relevant time period “‘that reveal, refer, or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, as well as communications that reveal, refer, or relate to events that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state.'”

Nature of Case: Claims for physical and emotional damages resulting from alleged bullying and harrassment

Electronic Data Involved: Social media activity, music, videos

Sprint Commc?ns Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-JWL, 11-2685-JWL, 11-2686-JWL, 2014 WL 1794552 (D. Kan. May 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Evaluating parties’ competing discovery protocols, court noted that defendants had not asked Sprint to collect documents from 60+ custodians, but, rather, faced with Sprint?s failure to identify potential custodians in violation of the agreed discovery order, defendants started suggesting people and asked Sprint either to search those individuals? files or explain why production from particular custodians on list was not necessary; court disapproved of Sprint?s continued failure to work with defendants to reach a reasonable solution, rejected as ?clearly unreasonable? Sprint?s proposal to collect responsive documents from only 12 new custodians, and ordered Sprint to sit down with defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue; court further ordered Sprint to include in its document searches a ?human review? of hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Consolidated cases involving patent infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; documents produced in prior litigations; metadata

In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mkg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, MDL No. 2100, 2014 WL 4961490 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied Rule 502 to conclude that disclosure of privileged slide presentations was inadvertent and did not waive attorney-client privilege; court ordered plaintiffs to return presentations and all copies to defendants and destroy all work product reflecting content from presentations, and directed clerk of court to strike from the court?s record certain exhibits containing references to the presentations

Nature of Case: 32 class actions relating to at least one of the drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin

Electronic Data Involved: Presentation prepared by defendants’ in-house counsel to convey legal advice to corporate employees and other presentations in which another employee conveyed the legal advice from the in-house counsel presentation to other corporate employees

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-03781 (SRC)(CLW), 2014 WL 1509238 (D.N.J. Jan, 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Weighing five factors to resolve the issue of waiver by inadvertent disclosure, court found that the use of analytical software without attorney review did not constitute reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure, and also faulted defendants? efforts to rectify the error, noting that defendants did not conduct a remedial investigation until after plaintiff alerted defendants that the production appeared to contain privileged documents; court concluded that, in light of the fact that the inadvertent disclosure was the result of a failure to review, justice would be served by a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents protected by attorney-client privilege

Didier v. Abbott Labs, No. 13-2046-JWL, 2014 WL 219851 (D. Kan. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that steps taken by defendants to locate responsive documents and their continued effort to work with plaintiff and supplement their production appeared sufficient, court declined to impose drastic sanctions requested by plaintiff but did allow plaintiff to re-depose particular witness as to emails that were produced after the witness’s deposition since plaintiff may have been prejudiced by her inability to question the witness regarding the content of those emails

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI including text messages

Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn, No. 100333, 2014 WL 1669132 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of defendants’ computer hard drives, as record did not demonstrate that documents plaintiff sought were being unlawfully withheld by defendants and not available from plaintiff’s own information or other sources, and in failing to set out an appropriate protocol to govern the forensic imaging process and protect defendants’ confidential information and preserve any private or privileged information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of employment agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Chickadaunce v. Minott, No. 1:13-cv-01223-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 4980547 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Considering the totality of circumstances and balancing the highly relevant and probative value of the information sought with the slight burden to defendant of preparing a database of case files (estimated by defendant to be 15-20 hours), and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truthseeking function in the case, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce database of electronic case files within 14 days

Nature of Case: Class of approximately 4,800 disabled individuals sued officials of Indiana Family & Social Services Administration alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic case files of approximately 200 past and current class members

Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Car, Inc., No. 12-cv-2706 (MJD/LIB), 2014 WL 10714011 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing a myriad of motions, court declined to compel Defendant?s production of irrelevant ESI hit upon by agreed-upon search terms reasoning that the rules permit and even encourage relevancy screening ?in an effort to avoid large, largely nonresponsive documents dumps mean to obscure and cloak relevant documents? and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had withheld relevant materials or agreed to the production of all search hits; court declined to compel Defendant?s production of a 30(b)(6)(witness to provide ?discovery on discovery? reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought was ?relevant to – or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to – any claim or defense at issue in the present case? and that the request ?treads dangerously close to encroaching on attorney work product privilege?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI search hits, “discovery on discovery”

The Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257-JJB-RLB, 2014 WL 4373210 (M.D. La. Sep. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where parties? agreed protective order stated that parties would endeavor to agree on search terms to be utilized in the search for responsive ESI, and current discovery dispute centered solely on the reasonableness of the search terms chosen by each party and the willingness of the parties to negotiate reasonable search terms, court rejected defendant?s proposed list of 90 search terms in light of plaintiff?s showing that the broad search would result in undue burden and expense by generating an excess of irrelevant documents, and instead ordered plaintiff to search for responsive documents using plaintiff?s 28 proposed search terms and protocol which the court found reasonable and well-tailored to locate responsive documents; court faulted parties for their lack of diligence in completing discovery within the court?s deadlines, observing: ?In short, both sides chose to do nothing, waiting to see if the other side would blink first. In doing so, they have compromised the deadlines in the court?s scheduling order, the briefing on dispositive motions, and have essentially gambled with the parameters of ESI discovery.?

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel