Motion to Compel – Page 66 – Electronic Discovery Law

King v. Rozek Co., No. 11-cv-01685-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 2884788 (D. Colo. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, based on discrepancies in certain witnesses? testimony, Plaintiff believed that relevant investigation notes/computer journal entries were created on a date later than the date alleged by the defendant, and where the creation date was relevant to the issues in the case, the court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel a forensic investigation of the computer on which the evidence was created, but sua sponte issued a protective order that would allow Plaintiff?s forensic investigator to make a mirror image of the at-issue computer but would limit his investigation to the question of when the notes were made or modified and which prohibited the investigator from accessing or viewing information not relevant to that discreet issue

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Crop Data Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Software Solutions Integrated LLC, No. 2:11-cv-01437 LKK KJN, 2012 WL 2571201 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?complete forensic imaging and an open ended computer inspection of all of defendants ?electronically stored information?? where the court found the request was overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome and costly in light of the time and cost of the necessary privilege reviews by defendants and other expenses associated with the business interruption of such inspections, where ?plaintiff ha[d] not reasonably attempted to obtain the information it [sought] short of the proposed, burdensome computer investigation,? and where it was ?highly improbable? that the parties could complete the inspection by the close of discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of computers and servers

Robinson v. City of Arkansas, Kansas, No. 10-1431-JAR-GLR, 2012 WL 603576 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the sufficiency of defendant?s search for responsive ESI, among other discovery disputes, court found that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search and ordered additional searching as specified by the court and that defendant produce mirror images of the computers and external drives of a former supervisor for defendant that was particularly relevant to the litigation (the court called the failure to search his computers ?inexcusable and inexplicable?); court granted protective order precluding defendant?s expert from requirement to produce hardware (computers, etc.) already subject to production by defendant pursuant to court?s order where such duplication was unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase costs

Nature of Case: civil rights and employment law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5519060 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: On defendant?s appeal of lower court?s order requiring production of his iphone to opposing counsel for counsel?s review, appellate court found the order too broad and ?tantamount to ordering the production of his computer? and remanded the case with the order that plaintiff produce the iphone to the court for in camera review to identify what if any information was responsive to plaintiff?s discovery request

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: iPhone

Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks

Hanwha Azdel, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00023, 2012 WL 6726412 (W.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant produced forty gigabytes of material on a single memory stick organized into folders by search term, with no other organization by custodian or otherwise, court noted that ?[o]rganizing a production to reflect how the information is kept ?in the usual course of business? sometimes requires the producing party to include different identifying information according to the type of document or file produced,? and that ?[e]mails specifically are produced in the usual course of business when responsive emails are arranged ?by custodian, in chronological order and with attachments, if any?? and found that the production was not in an appropriate format in this case; court ordered Defendant to bear the costs to convert the ESI into a readily usable format (estimated to be $8,463.00)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MGA Entm?t, Inc. v. Nat?l Prods. Ltd., No. CV 10-07083 JAK (SSx), 2012 WL 12886446 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of responsive documents relating to Defendant?s sale of products carrying the Little Tikes brand. Defendant had attached documents to its opposition motion that it had not previously produced to Plaintiff, which prompted the current motion. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant ?identify all custodians of documents referring or relating to Defendant?s sale? and conduct a ?forensic analysis of all Defendants? document custodians? to locate responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request for a forensic analysis, noting ?that the motion is based only on speculation and lacks conclusive proof that responsive documents are actually being withheld.? However the court found that Defendant?s ESI searching ?may have been inadequate? and were performed ?without guidance or supervision from an attorney on how to conduct a search.? The court ordered a meet and confer to identify custodians and agree on search terms, the Defendant must then perform the searches of ESI on Defendants’ computers/systems (supervised by an attorney who must then submit a declaration) and produce responsive documents.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

General Elec. Co. v. Wilkins, No. 1:10-cv-00674, 2012 WL 570048 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing whether GE would be required to restore, search, and produce responsive contents of hundreds of backup tapes, court found that the data on the backup tapes was not reasonably accessible because of the significant expense of restoring and searching the tapes and further found that defendant did not show good cause to compel restoration and production, particularly where defendant failed to provide any evidence of the presence of unique, responsive documents on the tapes

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel