Motion to Compel – Page 71 – Electronic Discovery Law

Boucher v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. C10-199RAJ, 2011 WL 5299497 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Following discussion of the breadth of original requests and subsequent narrowing of scope, court addressed duty of defendant to produce evidence from third-party who provided defendant with mortgage-related documents and from independent agents and ordered production from those parties where evidence indicated that at least some agents had contractually agreed to produce documents thus evidencing defendant?s control and where provider of mortgage-documents did not object to disclosure

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from third parties

Hansen v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00959-TS-DN, 2011 WL 2149770 (D. Utah May 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel forensic imaging of laptop containing responsive information where plaintiff did not elaborate on the ?need? for such imaging but rather just asked for it, where defendant offered to produce the relevant information from the laptop on a thumb drive, and where defendant indicated that the laptop contained both confidential and personal information

Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O?Brien & Gere Eng?rs. Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 WL 6117908 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced 64,350 pages of documents in electronic form without identifying what request the documents were responsive to, the court ordered the parties to cooperate to prepare a load file to assist in defendant?s review and ordered defendant to bear the cost and, where the court agreed with defendants that metadata was an ?important source for the defendants as part of the orderly production? of ESI, the court ordered the parties to cooperate ?in completing the metadata requested by the defendants in an appropriate format? and that ?outside costs, if any, other than copying costs for the metadata [would] also be borne by the defendants?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Hock Foods, Inc. v. William Blair & Co., LLC, No. 09-2588-KHV, 2011 WL 884446 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Based upon affidavits of defendant?s General Counsel and Litigation Technology Project Manager identifying the burden of responding to plaintiff?s requests for production, including potentially searching 12,786 boxes of hardcopy and 12 terabytes of data, court denied motion to compel but ordered defendant to provide a supplemental response to plaintiff?s request after conducting less burdensome searches and encouraged cooperation to agree upon what those searches would entail; court also denied motion to compel additional searching for particular issues where defendant estimated the cost of search per gigabyte at between $100 and $300 with a total resulting cost of between $1.2 million and $3.6 million

Nature of Case: Dispute regarding proper payment pursuant to contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

150 Nassau Assoc. LLC v. RC Dolner LLC, No. 601879/04, 2011 WL 579061 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of database data in native format where the same information had been produced in PDF format, where there were no accusations of inconsistencies in the information provided, where neither party addressed the costs of the requested native production and where the native data sought could not be provided without also disclosing irrelevant confidential information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Escamilla v. SMS Holdings Corp., No. 09-2120 ADM/JSM, 2011 WL 5025254 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court affirmed Magistrate Judge?s order requiring defendant to submit his computers for forensic examination, at his own expense, where defendant reinstalled an operating system less than two weeks after plaintiff filed a motion to compel and where, because of the loss of data, plaintiff was therefore prejudiced to an unknown extent?bad faith was not required for such an order; court affirmed order requiring corporate defendant to search hard drives of key employees, the image of a file and print server, and backup tapes dating back five years where the search was not overly broad and where defendant did not establish undue burden?despite its exorbitant estimate regarding backup tapes?in light of the large disparity between estimates from both parties, and where the court noted that much of the costs could have been avoided had SMS fulfilled its preservation duties and not converted to a less accessible format

Nature of Case: Employment litigation – sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

First Tenn. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Republic Mortg. Ins. Co. & Republic Mortg. Ins. Co. of N.C., No. 2:10-cv-02513-JPM-cgc, 2011 WL 6130808 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing the requisite showing to establish undue burden in responding to discovery, the court identified ?several overarching principles to be considered:? 1) that a party must provide ?competent proof demonstrating the burden faced;? 2) that ?the fact that a party maintains its document in a manner than makes access difficult is not an excuse for refusing to produce relevant documents;? and 3) that the court must consider whether the ?claimed hardship is unreasonable in light of the benefits to be secured,? and upon review of the evidence presented, ordered plaintiff to respond to defendants? requests for production

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Diesel Mach., Inc. v. Manitowoc Crane, Inc., No. CIV 09-4087-RAL, 2011 WL 677458 (D.S.D. Feb 16, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties had an agreement to produce in native format which the court had approved and adopted but later agreed that defendant could produce some information in hard copy (in light of defendant?s representation that hard copy production could be more quickly accomplished prior to pending depositions), the court found the parties agreement to produce in native format was modified and declined to compel re-production citing the burden and expense (including duplication of time and expense of conducting redactions, for example)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and claims arising from South Dakota Dealer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced in hard copy

Wood v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 5:09-CV-1445, 2011 WL 2154279 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel additional discovery, including ?sweeping searches of ESI using suggested search terms? where, following significant analysis of the rule of proportionality (26(b)(2)(C)), the court determined that the ?minimally relevant information to be developed through the discovery? was ?far outweighed by the burden? associated with it, but left open plaintiff?s option to bear the cost of the discovery himself

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel