Motion to Compel – Page 57 – Electronic Discovery Law

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Pereira v. City of New York, No. 26927/11, 2013 WL 3497615(N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant demonstrated that there were probative photos on Plaintiff?s Facebook and elsewhere (i.e. ?a hockey blog?) , the court reasoned that it was ?therefore reasonable to believe that other portions of his Facebook account may contain further evidence relevant to the issue of plaintiff?s injuries,? and ordered Plaintiff to provide for in camera inspection ?all photographs depicting sporting activities posted on the demanded media sites? and ?copies of all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos posted on plaintiff?s media sites since the date of the subject accident?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: ?Social media websites and blogs? e.g., Facebook

Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV 10-2211-DMG (DTBx), 2014 WL 8116823 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court partly granted plaintiffs? motion to compel, requiring government: (1) to re-produce all documents it had produced in a “locked” password-protected file either as they were kept in the ordinary course or organized and labeled to correspond to document requests, (2) as to other documents government had previously re-produced, to provide an index identifying, by date of production and bates number, which documents each reproduction was meant to replace, and whether any documents were new, and (3) as to documents from which government had redacted on the basis of non-responsiveness and not on the basis of any privilege, to produce unredacted versions of such documents

Nature of Case: Class action concerning government’s detention and removal of immigrants with mental issues

Electronic Data Involved: Various documents related to over 200 detainees, includingi A-file, medical documents, records of proceedings and database information

Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-02082-APG-CWH, 2013 WL 5332410 (D. Nev. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge found that defendant had waived attorney-client privilege as to privileged documents provided to testifying expert for use in preparing his expert report, given that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires disclosure of ?the facts or data considered by the witness in forming [his/her opinion(s)],? and expert testified, under oath, that he reviewed the documents he was provided; magistrate judge further ruled that other privileged documents inadvertently produced by defendant were not subject to waiver as parties’ agreed protective order contained strict time line and process for filing motions to challenge claims of privilege after an inadvertent disclosure, and plaintiff did not follow the process

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents

Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV LLC, No. 11 C 1768, 2013 WL 1195829 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court evaluated and overruled each of defendants’ objections to various discovery rulings of magistrate judge, applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review; among other things, district court found that magistrate judge did not err in ruling that defendants’ production of ESI was insufficient in that it lacked all of the required metadata, e.g., author information, information about whether the file was stored, and revision histories for computer-aided designs

Nature of Case: Claimis for patent infringement and design patent infringement arising out of defendants’ manufacture and sale of certain TV mounts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

First Fin. Bank N. A. v Bauknecht, No. 12-CV-1509, 2013 WL 3833039 (C.D. Ill. July 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge granted a motion to compel a search of all of defendant?s email accounts , not limited to the 4 specific individuals listed in the Rule 26(a) disclosures, reasoning that the 26(a) disclosure ?only meant? that the individuals identified may be used to support defendant?s claims or defense and that defendant did not indicate that the specified employees were the only ones to have responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant to conduct separate searches of its email, one by ?recipient/sender? and one ?by subject matter? using specified search terms and reasoned that the latter search was broader, but indicated that Plaintiff could pay for the second search. Having declined to limit the accounts to be searched, the court acknowledged the likelihood that accounts unlikely to have relevant information would be included, and shifted 25% of the cost to the requesting party (Plaintiff).

Nature of Case: Breach of Employment Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, No. 12SA287, 2013 WL 1557840 (Colo. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone

Hull v. WTI, Inc.,—S.E.2d—, 2013 WL 2996191 (Ga. Ct. App. June 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants produced 156,000 documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business but where the documents were insufficiently organized and only the documents? indexes and not the documents themselves were text searchable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the production was not consistent with Defendants? discovery obligations; appellate court noted that trial court did not hold that parties are prohibited from producing documents as kept in the ordinary course of business but rather than in this instance, ?under these circumstances,? the production was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, trade secret misappropriations, and “other business tort claims” and counterclaims

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy and miscellaneous ESI (e.g., email)

Cefalu v. Holder, No. 12-0303 THE (JSC), 2013 WL 4102160 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to compel production of plaintiff’s personal computers’ hard drives for inspection or to compel Plaintiff?s counsel to perform an independent search of the computer and other electronic devices to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced and where Defendant cited a prior search by Plaintiff?s counsel that yielded additional responsive documents and Plaintiff?s counsel?s admission that she had never examined the contents of Plaintiff?s personal computers, the court acknowledged that the rules do not create a right of direct access to a party?s electronic information systems, but, also acknowledged that the history of Plaintiff?s document productions suggested that he may not ?fully understand his search obligations,? and thus the court ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to ensure that all responsive documents on the computers and other devices were located and produced but declined to allow Defendant to conduct its own examination absent a demonstration of good cause

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer

Tag:Motion to Compel