Motion to Compel – Page 73 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Seven Seas Cruises S. De. R.L. v. V. Ships Leisure SAM, No. 09-23411-CIV, 2011 WL 772855 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants ?failed to properly conduct complete, thorough and timely searches of ESI responsive to Plaintiffs? discovery requests,? which the evidence showed resulted from ?a lack of familiarity and/or training in searching and producing ESI?, the court declined to impose default judgment and instead recommended that defendants? Motions for Summary Judgment be denied and ordered that defendants retain a third party consultant or vendor to perform a search for responsive documents, that responsive ESI be produced in a prescribed format, and that defendants pay plaintiffs? attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Claim for damages arising from defendants? alleged failure to provide proper ship management and care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chen v. LW Restaurant, Inc., No. 10 CV 200 (ARR), 2011 WL 3420433 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata

Tag:Motion to Compel