Motion to Compel – Page 74 – Electronic Discovery Law

Larkin v. Trinity Lighting, Inc., No. 3:10cv109-TSL-MTP, 2011 WL 1496248 (D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where questions remained as to whether plaintiff deleted files from his work laptop in bad faith before returning it, whether defendant suffered any prejudice as a result and whether the information sought to be forensically retrieved was likely to be of any substantial benefit, court denied defendant?s motion to compel restoration of the laptop at plaintiff?s expense, but concluded that defendant could retrieve the information at its own costs if it so chose

Nature of Case: Claims alleging failure to pay bonus payment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant evidence despite two court orders and then wrongly certified that the production was complete, the district court granted defendant?s motion to dismiss; on appeal, the circuit court affirmed the sanction (in a colorful opinion full of quotable quotes), holding that ?no one . . . should count on more than three chances to make good on a discovery obligation? and that the district court was within its considerable discretion in granting dismissal

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Tax records

In re Facebook PPC Adver. Litig., No. C09-03043 JF (HRL), 2011 WL 1324516 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite Facebook?s assertions that an ESI protocol was unnecessary and that there was no basis to require rigid up-front requirements, court cited the ?clear thrust of discovery-related rules, case law, and commentary? suggesting that communication among counsel is critical and ordered parties to meet and confer to establish protocol to establish the format of production, search terms, etc.; court ordered re-production of any ESI already produced in non-searchable formats and prohibited Facebook?s further use of Watchdox.com to make ESI available to plaintiffs where the method was unduly burdensome to plaintiffs (in light of Facebook?s control of the documents, ability to track what was reviewed, etc.) and where parties previously agreed to a protective order which provided sufficient protection to the documents at issue

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Tag:Motion to Compel