Motion to Compel – Page 71 – Electronic Discovery Law

Io Group, Inc. v. GLBT, Ltd., No. C-10-1282 MMC (DMR), 2011 WL 4974337 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion for sanctions and ordered adverse inference for defendants? spoliation where defendants failed to suspend the automatic deletion function on their email which deleted both incoming and outgoing emails after three to four days and where defendants admitted to deleting relevant audio visual content from their server, court also ordered payment of attorney?s fees and costs for defendants? failure to adequately respond to the court?s order for particular information related to their preservation and collection efforts; court rejected assertions that UK Data Protection Act does not permit the retention of personal information and required deletion of emails where defendant offered no evidence that the deleted data contained personal information protected by statute and also rejected the position that the court lacked authority to order production pursuant to the Data Protection Act

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Clark, 345 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court?s order compelling plaintiff?s production of her personal computer and electronic storage devices did not provide sufficient protection for plaintiff?s potentially privileged documents where defendant?s forensic analyst would use search terms such as ?attorney? and ?lawyer? to identify potentially privileged information and, after expressing its confidence that the trial court would vacate its prior order and compel production in a manner that provided adequate protection of privileged information, conditionally granted plaintiff?s petition for mandamus indicating that ?[t]he writ of mandamus shall issue only in the event the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion?

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer, storage devices

United States v. Halliburton, Co., 272 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court declined to compel defendants to conduct additional searching where defendants established the significant efforts already undertaken to locate and produce responsive materials and where plaintiff made ?no showing whatsoever . . . that those emails not produced will make the existence of some crucial facts more likely than not?, the court concluded that ?the search relator demands cannot possibly be justified when one balances its cost against its utility.?; court went on to establish that the inability to find certain information, despite a duty to preserve, did not negate the ability of a party to rely on Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to argue against additional searching

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Additional searching for ESI

Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535 (C.P. Northumberland May 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Compel and ordered plaintiff to provide all passwords, user names and log-in names for any and all MySpace of Facebook accounts

Nature of Case: Claims arising from injury at work

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network

Osborne LLC v. C.H. Robinson Co., No. 08 C 50165, 2011 WL 5076267 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant ?was late in responding to some of plaintiff?s discovery requests, and failed to respond to Plaintiff?s good faith attempts to open a dialogue about electronic discovery? and where there was evidence that defendant knew what plaintiff was seeking but ?was deliberatively evasive and caused unnecessary delay? (by failing to produce relevant records because plaintiff had not specifically asked for documents containing specific terms, for example) the court indicted that defendant?s actions were not in line with the Federal Rules, the Seventh Circuit?s Pilot Program principles, or the Sedona Principles and ordered payment of certain of plaintiff?s fees and costs; court noted Plaintiff?s contributions to the delays by ?aggressively pursuing motions to compel and for sanctions when there may have been opportunities for more amicable resolutions? and thus declined to impose cost or fees related to duplicative or repetitive motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.,671 F.3d 726(9th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) applies to foreign citizens and thus precluded Microsoft Corporation from producing a foreign citizen?s emails, which were stored on its server.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on domestic server

Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Amer., Inc., 2011 WL 196920 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of plaintiff?s claims of privilege resulting from the production of one privileged email where, pursuant to FRE 502(a) the waiver was not intentional as established by the sworn statement of plaintiff?s counsel that he was not aware that the plaintiff?s sister, the other party to the relevant email, was an attorney

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Madere v. Compass Bank, No. A-10-CV-812 LY, 2011 WL 5155643 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes

Mgmt. Compensation Group Lee, Inc. v. Oklahoma State Univ., No. CIV-11-967-D, 2011 WL 5326262 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where non-party OSU represented that responding to a subpoena seeking 6571 documents would require an expenditure of $1,761.24 and 55 hours of in-house counsel?s time, court found the burden was not so undue as to require protection from compliance and, in so finding, noted OSU?s financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, OSU?s close ties to a party in the case, and the amount in controversy of the underlying litigation (many millions of dollars)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant?s assertion that relevant video surveillance footage was protected as work product as a result of its preservation in anticipation of litigation and pursuant to the direction of counsel where the video was ?made as part of the normal course of surveillance videos made by NCL? and ?was not created in the work product context?

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Tag:Motion to Compel