Motion to Compel – Page 52 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lee v. Chicago Youth Ctrs., 69 F. Supp. 3d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Reasoning that ?[h]aving contented themselves to file a response to the motion to compel that was conclusory and factually and legally unsupported, the defendants must live with the consequences of that decision,? the court found privilege was waived as to two allegedly inadvertently produced emails; court?s analysis also criticized Defendants? attempts to rectify the inadvertent production where, upon being notified of possible inadvertent production, they relied upon their vendor?the same vendor responsible for the inadvertent production in the first place?to search for privileged information which the vendor subsequently missed and also criticized defense counsels? failure to undertake a review of the information themselves: ?There is a good deal of merit to the plaintiff?s contention that defendants? four lawyers, who are members of a firm whose ?website boasts a roster of ?nearly 800 attorneys,? having ?delegated document review to an unidentified outside vendor (particularly after having been specifically advised of a potential problem with the production)? simply cannot be heard to argue that they took ?the kind of prompt reasonable steps to rectify any error in production which should allow them now to assert inadvertence and avoid a finding of waiver.??

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Virco Mfg. Corp. v. Hertz Furniture Sys., No. CV 13-2205 JAK(JCx), 2014 WL 12591482 (C.D. Cal. Fan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: The court granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of email attachments, noting that ?by failing to produce email attachments, plaintiff has effectively redacted, based upon relevance, portions of documents it otherwise apparently views to be discoverable/relevant/responsive to defendants? discovery requests.? The court further noted that Plaintiff ?offered no evidence that it would suffer any undue burden from producing such electronic data.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(AT)(JCF), 2014 WL 716521 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied a motion to compel defendants to produce all documents (including those determined to be not responsive) identified by ?a computerized search tool that utilized a series of search terms agreed to by the parties? reasoning that the parties did not agree to such production, that the agreed upon protocol did not ?override the discovery demands and responses? (including defendants’ objection to the scope of certain requests) and that it was ?too late in the day for the plaintiffs to contest the scope defined by the defendants? objections, which were served in January 2011?

Nature of Case: Class action employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: All ESI identified by search terms

Ogden v. All-State Career School, No. 2:13cv406, 2014 WL 1646934 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court observed that ordering plaintiff to permit access to or produce complete copies of his social networking accounts would permit defendant to cast too wide a net and sanction an inquiry into scores of quasi-personal information that would be irrelevant and non-discoverable, and stated: ?Defendant is no more entitled to such unfettered access to plaintiff’s personal email and social networking communications than it is to rummage through the desk drawers and closets in plaintiff’s home”; court ruled that defendant was only entitled to limited discovery of plaintiff’s communications, and set out particular steps that plaintiff must take to comply with defendant?s requests

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and disparate treatment based on reverse gender discrimination and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic communications made or affirmatively acknowledged by plaintiff on any social networking website (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, MySpace) during the period of alleged harassment

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lozoya v. Allphase Landscape Constr., Inc., No. 12-cv-1048-JLK, 2014 WL 222326 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered production of ESI from plaintiff?s girlfriend?s computer upon finding that the information, including when she searched for an attorney for the plaintiff and the search terms she employed, was relevant to the litigation and ordered the production of plaintiff?s ESI, despite his claims that his computers were ?broken? absent factual support for the contention that the data was not accessible; court further ordered production of all relevant ?phone ESI? in plaintiff?s possession

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wage and hour)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff’s computers and on third party’s computer, “Phone ESI”

Freedman v. Weatherford Int?l, Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121(LAK)(JCF), 2014 WL 3767034 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court considered plaintiffs? motion to compel production of ?certain reports comparing the results of the defendants document search and production in this case with? the search terms proposed by the plaintiff and with searches and productions related to prior investigations but denied the motion upon defendant?s showing that preparing only a sample report took ?several weeks, over 250 hours of vendor time, and 750 hours of computer processing time? and where plaintiffs offered ?no adequate factual basis for their belief that the current production [was] deficient? in support of what amounted to a request for ?discovery on discovery?; court acknowledged, however, that ?there are circumstances where such collateral discovery is warranted?

Nature of Case: False and misleading statements in violation of securities laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Capital Ventures Int?l v. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., No. 12-10085-RWZ, 2014 WL 1431124 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s request for all RMBS-related documents that defendants previously produced in other lawsuits or to “any congressional body, regulatory agency, law enforcement agency or person” was overbroad and of speculative relevance; court granted motion to compel but adopted defendants’ proposal to run agreed-upon search terms over their productions to the SEC and NY attorney general, deeming such method sufficient to capture materials relevant to pending action; court also extended relevant time period for electronic searches

Nature of Case: Claims under the Massachussetts Uniform Securities Act relating to residential mortgage-backed security (“RMBS”) offerings

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology, LLC, No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 4386439 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of all emails and spreadsheets in native format, since the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report was a stipulation and therefore Rule 34(b) did not govern their dispute; the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report did not require that all ESI be produced electronically but only stated that ESI may be produced in paper, PDF, or TIFF and that electronic files should be produced in native format when it was more practicable to do so; defendant failed to articulate why metadata was important to emails; and plaintiff had already produced some of its spreadsheets in native format (Excel) where the printouts were difficult to read

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and spreadsheets

Tag:Motion to Compel