Motion to Compel – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Densen v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (D. Utah 2020)

Jun 29 2020

Key Insight: A forensic imaging of Plaintiff’s electronic devices and cloud based accounts was warranted because Plaintiff lost relevant evidence during the discovery process and continually made misrepresentations regarding this evidence and how it was stored. The forensic imaging would preserve any evidence and possible recover evidence that has been loss. This would not be an invasion of privacy as Plaintiff’s privacy can be adequately protected. A third party service provider can image the devices and collect the data. Counsel would not have access to any of the data until after the court approves a review plan, which would implement additional safeguards to ensure there is no access to irrelevant or private information.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Recording, Cloud Based Account Data, Electronic Device Data

Case Summary

Denson v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D. Utah, 2020)

Jun 29 2020

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s explanation regarding loss of evidence had changed and court ruled that defendant was entitled to have a third party collect and preserve the evidence. Plaintiff offered passwords to accounts, but court was concerned about possible destruction given Plaintiff’s changing explanation regarding social media accounts and recording.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Devices and Cloud Based Accounts; Recording of conversation

Keywords: invasion of privacy, loss of evidence

View Case Opinion

EEOC v. George Washington Univ. (D.D.C. June 26, 2020)

Jun 26 2020

Key Insight: Under FRE 502(d), inadvertent disclosures do not result in a waiver of privilege. While this rule can be utilized to reduce costs of pre-production privilege review, a party cannot be forced to engage in a discovery process that would likely result in the production of privileged documents.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination, Equal Pay, Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

US EEOC v The George Washington University (D.D.C. 2020)

Jun 26 2020

Key Insight: Defendant was ordered to produce non-privileged emails responsive to RFP’s. Linear reivew proposed by Defendant wasn’t necessary and other paths existed. Concerns that potential production of privileged information was not enough to justify withholding. Defendant claimed a document by document review was needed, but court believed claw back provisions would be sufficient.

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Keywords: review process, 502, privilege

View Case Opinion

Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems (Kansas, 2020)

Jun 18 2020

Key Insight: When plaintiff was allowed to dictate defendant’s electronic discovery process, cost shifting to plaintiff is appropriate when electronic discovery performed was not proportionate to the case

Nature of Case: Employment non-compete agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Keywords: Cost shifting, technology assisted review, TAR, aerospace

View Case Opinion

Bolding v. Banner Bank (W.D. Wash. 2020)

May 22 2020

Key Insight: The plaintiffs, current and former mortgage/residential loan officers of defendant, filed a motion for spoliation sanctions and entry of default judgment against defendant based on the failure to preserve and intentional destruction of email accounts and calendar data. The court found: (1) the ESI was relevant to the claims in the lawsuit; (2) defendant breached its duties by intentionally destroying ESI after learning that employees had accused defendant of not paying overtime and after being threatened with a lawsuit, and even after the lawsuit was filed and formal requests for production were received, it paid to order the destruction of additional backup tapes; and (3) the evidence is irretrievably lost. The court declined to enter a default judgment, concluding “[t]he availability of less drastic sanctions that have the ability to mitigate the damage caused by defendant’s egregious destruction of evidence is a powerful factor that militates against imposing dispositive sanctions.”

Nature of Case: Wage and Hour Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Email and calendar accounts

Case Summary

Crossman v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020)

May 04 2020

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel social media discovery from plaintiff. The court considered plaintiff’s objections based on relevancy, privacy, and vagueness. Plaintiff did not assert a proportionality argument. The court found that the discovery was relevant – “common sense dictates that information in [plaintiff’s] social medial . . . relates to her contemporaneous mental and emotional states and therefore relates to the injuries she claims she suffered at the hands of [defendant], including loss of enjoyment of life.” As to privacy, a confidentiality agreement suffices to protect plaintiff’s interests. As to vagueness, plaintiff’s counsel can “reasonably and naturally” interpret the requests in view of the claims and defenses through communication with opposing counsel. Lastly, an award of expenses was unwarranted since “reasonable minds can differ on the dispute.”

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Case Summary

Corker v. Costco Wholesale (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Apr 27 2020

Key Insight:

Electronic documents should be produced in the form it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form. PDF images of a spreadsheet are not a reasonably usable form due to the functional limitations. While they are readable and searchable, they cannot be sorted or filtered as an original spreadsheet can be. Spreadsheets should be produced in their native form.

A party cannot unilaterally redact a document based on relevance absent a claim of privilege. In cases where the document contains highly confidential commercial information, a protective order may be issued requiring the information not be revealed or only be revealed in a specified way, such as designating it for “counsel eyes only.”

Nature of Case: Class Action, Unfair Competition

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Case Summary

In re Aenergy, S.A. (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Apr 03 2020

Key Insight: The primary purpose of an email must be to secure legal advice to be privileged. It is not enough to copy counsel on the email. If requests in the email are directed to non-legal employees and counsel does not weigh in, it cannot be said that the primary purpose is to seek legal advice. When it is unclear whether a document is providing legal advice or is driven by business or negotiation considerations, attorney-client privilege will not be extended to the document.

Categorical privilege logs must provide sufficient information to evaluate the privilege claim. The party’s vague and repetitive privilege log along with its attempts to claw-back unprivileged documents led to a loss of credibility with the court. The court ordered a re-review of its privilege determination with a revised document-by-document privileged log.

Nature of Case: Fraud, Contract Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Lundine v. Gates Corp. (D. Kan. 2020)

Mar 30 2020

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved to compel defendant to produce ESI of class-member pay data in Excel format or native format, or in the alternative, to allow her experts to access the data and download it. Defendant opposed the motion, asserting it had adequately responded by producing the data in PDF format. The court denied plaintiff’s motion. Neither party disputed that defendant produced the information in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained and the data in PDF form is still usable. “[R]equiring defendant to re-produce data in Excel format would be duplicative and unduly burdensome.”

Nature of Case: Wage and Hour Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll Data

Case Summary

Tag:Motion to Compel