Motion to Compel – Page 71 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ingersoll v. Farmland Foods, Inc., No. 10-6046-CV-SJ-FJG, 2011 WL 1131129 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant?s production of its litigation hold where such letters are generally not discoverable absent evidence of spoliation; resolving dispute related to how to initially proceed with discovery of ESI, court approved defendant?s proposal to utilize search terms for the identification of potentially responsive information and to sample those results to determine the success of the terms; court also ordered that plaintiff be provided access to the search term ?hits? so that ?both sides may have an opportunity to determine the efficacy of the sampling.?

Nature of Case: Employment claims related to payment for ?donning and doffing?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Andrew, No. 10 Civ. 947 (WHP)(HBP), 276 F.R.D. 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Undertaking the appropriate comity analysis and finding that only two of seven factors weighed in favor of plaintiffs and that every other favor weighed in favor of the non-party banks, court denied motion to compel production of banking records of non-party Chinese banks

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Banking records

Quality Inv. Props. Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Electric, Inc., No. C 09-5376 LHK (PSG), 2011 WL 1364005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties failed to meet and confer Pursuant to Rule 26(f) and thus failed to agree on format of production, and where plaintiff?s production was not in the format maintained in the usual course of business or organized and labeled according to the categories in the discovery requests, court ordered re-production of plaintiff?s ESI in a format agreed upon by the parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Int?l Med. Group, Inc. v. Walker, No. 1:08-cv-923-JMS-TAB, 2011 WL 1752101 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where relevant evidence found on defendants? hard drive ?challenge[d]? defendants? prior assertions that they had not retained copies of certain communications and defendant Walker?s ?self characterization as a peripheral observer?, the court concluded that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of fraud and that defendants therefore waived their attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel regarding: ?preservation, destruction, or location of documents or discussion of discovery obligations?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to defame and tortuously interfere with business relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Diabolic Video Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-2099, No. 10-CV-5865-PSG, 2011 WL 3100404 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Graff v. Haverhill N. Coke Co., No. 1:09-cv-670, 2011 WL 1630045 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, by comparing the time taken to respond to other requests, defendant established that responding to the requests at issue would be unduly burdensome (requiring an estimated 1,000 to 1,600 hours) and where plaintiff failed to provide ?any particular showing ? of the benefit to be obtained from such information?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

CNX Gas Co. LLC v. Miller Petroleum, Inc., No. E2009-00226-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1849082 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order that shifted defendant?s costs related to the production and review of electronic discovery subject to plaintiff?s motion to compel where defendant provided ?specific facts? presented in an affidavit of its IT personnel that demonstrated that the ?electronic documents requested by CNX created an undue burden because those documents required an additional review to prevent the disclosure of privileged information? and where it was within the trial court?s discretion to ?tailor? the discovery requests, including by shifting costs

Nature of Case: Suit arising from dispute related to oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Olesky v. Gen. Electric Co., No. 06 C 1245, 2011 WL 3471016 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Chevron Corp. v. E-Tech Int., No. 10cv1146-IEG (WMc), 2011 WL 1898908 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: The court denied defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court?s order allowing forensic examination of the at issue hard drive by a neutral forensic examiner where defendant failed to meet the standard for reconsideration

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

Tag:Motion to Compel