Motion to Compel – Page 74 – Electronic Discovery Law

Morris v Scenera Research LLC, No. 09 CVS 19678, 2011 WL 3808544 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court upheld clawback agreement between the parties which held that inadvertent production would not result in waiver; where parties entered into 26(f) agreement regarding what metadata need be produced but where plaintiff moved to compel production of additional fields because those provided did not allow him to search effectively or identify the source of particular documents, the court entered into an extensive analysis of the ?form? and ?organization? requirements in Rule 34 and withheld ruling until defendant could provide evidence regarding the burden of providing an index that could allow identification of the source of each document

Nature of Case: State employment claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Corbello v. Devito, 2010 WL 4703519 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2010); 2011 WL 1466605 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants had already produced ?hundreds of scripts and draft scripts? in .pdf format, a hardcopy notebook of page changes to the script, and the only two comments to the script made using the ?notes function? the Screenwriter software at issue, the court found that the production of scripts and drafts in .pdf was a reasonably usable format and that ?additional production of [the] materials in native format would be an unnecessary burden and unjustifiable waste of time and resources? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; in second opinion, court reconsidered prior approval or production in .pdf format and ordered production in native format

Electronic Data Involved: Native production of all changes made to the relevant script for all productions

Alers v. City of Philadelphia, No. 08-4745, 2011 WL 6000602 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced a privileged memorandum as part of a multi-page document amid more than 2000 pages of document production and where they requested return of the document four days after learning of its disclosure at a deposition (where there was no objection made), the court found that privilege was not waived (despite defendants? choice to attach the memorandum to a publically available motion)

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced memorandum

Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in response to the at-issue request for production, defendant failed to identify its archives as a source of information that it would not search or to object to plaintiff?s request and, in fact, represented that it would produce responsive information, court found the information sought was relevant, that plaintiff?s motion was timely, and ordered defendant to search its archives upon rejecting defendant?s untimely assertions of undue burden and cost

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, claims under the Communications Act, and various tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Archived emails

General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM, 2011 WL 2415715 (D. Colo. June 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of plaintiff?s audio calls where plaintiff asserted that defendant?s claims were ?thin? and did not specify any damages and where in light of this, plaintiff asserted that the burden of producing the requested audio recordings outweighed any potential benefit; plaintiff supported its assertions that the audio recordings were ?not reasonably accessible? with affidavits indicating the high volume of calls to review, the need to listen to each call to determine its responsiveness, the incredible time and financial costs of such a review, and the possibility that privileged calls were present in the mix such that a third party could not be relied on to assist

Nature of Case: False and misleading advertising, deceptive sales practices

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

In re Google Litig., No. C 08-03172 RMW (PSG), 2011 WL 6113000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where third party objected to plaintiff?s subpoena as overly broad and burdensome but nevertheless undertook a limited search which resulted in the identification of zero documents, but where plaintiff argued the search was halfhearted and that additional searching was required, the court took notice of objective of the recently adopted Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases and indicated its applicability to third parties and thereafter ordered plaintiff to provide the non-party with five search terms to be utilized in additional searching and that plaintiff would bear the costs of any terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant, ?a small company with 13 employees? who presented evidence that it was not profitable, objected to discovery pursuant to 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) based on an estimated cost of $2,630 to comply with plaintiff?s request (which included, in part, the cost of necessary software to complete the review), the court declined to shift the cost of production but stated that defendant could choose to produce un-reviewed ESI to plaintiff, thus shifting the cost of software necessary for review, but if defendant wished to review the data first, it would bear the costs of doing so

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Millsaps v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., No. 10-84924, 2011 WL 6019220 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in a separate but similar case involving the same plaintiffs? counsel and defendant, defendant was previously prepared to produce the scanned contents of approximately 1300 boxes when the case settled, and where plaintiff in the present case (with the same plaintiffs? counsel) sought production of those documents in his case, and where the disagreement focused on which party should be allowed to search the documents for relevant information (because defendant felt that plaintiff?s search would identify all documents as relevant and plaintiff felt that defendant would not identify relevant documents that were not obviously relevant but nonetheless important), the court ordered the parties to confer to develop search terms and agreed, if necessary, to consider up to 100 disputed terms submitted by the parties

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, asbestos

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy

City of Colton v. Amer. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Affirming the order of the magistrate judge, the Court found that Rule 34 production requirements applied equally to hard copy and ESI, that the Case Management Order did not exempt the parties from the requirements of Rule 34, and that where defendants did not produce ESI as maintained in the usual course of business, they would be required to label their productions to correspond to the categories in the request, or, as offered by plaintiff, could re-produce ESI in native format in lieu of labeling

Nature of Case: CERCLA, RCRA – seeking cleanup costs from owner of property formerly used as ammunition storage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

Tag:Motion to Compel