Motion to Compel – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al. (Middle District of Florida, 2020)

Mar 20 2020

Key Insight: Proportionality need for records not related to the claim; Relevance; Access to records; Parties resources; Whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs it’s likely benefit

Nature of Case: Prisoner Pro Se – Unconstitutional use of excessive force by corrections officers

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy (discipline records/ Mail logs); collection

Keywords: Compel; Sanctions; Declaration of counsel; Malicious and sadistic purpose to inflict harm; State of Mind; Veracity; narrowed requests; meet and confer;

View Case Opinion

U.S. v. Morgan (Western District of New York, 2020)

Mar 06 2020

Key Insight: encryption

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; Money Laundering conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Servers, computers, storage media, iPhone

Keywords: Search warrant; “GrayKey” program to access passcodes; Unreasonable retention of the iPhone; Motion for Return of Property; 3 part test – 1.entitled to possession, 2. property not contraband, 3. either seizure was illegal or the government’s need for the property as evidence has ended; evidentiary burden

View Case Opinion

Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC (3rd Circuit, 2020)

Mar 03 2020

Key Insight: defendant argued that it had no obligation to respond to timely discovery requests because the due date of the discovery was after the discovery deadline.

Nature of Case: telemarketing violation

Electronic Data Involved: requests for admission

Keywords: discovery deadline, requests for admission

View Case Opinion

Vaks v. Quinlan, et al. (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Feb 24 2020

Key Insight: plaintiff violated the protective order by filing a pleading attaching confidential documents

Nature of Case: employment discrimintation

Electronic Data Involved: confidential documents protected under the protective order

Keywords: protective order, confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Feb 20 2020

Key Insight: The requested business guidelines were relevant. The scope of discovery is very broad. A request for discovery is relevant “unless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the action.”

The court declined to find the guidelines so confidential that they cannot be produced. Defendants did not move for a protective order nor did they provide any evidence of harm that would result from producing the guidelines.

Attorney fees were awarded to Plaintiff because Defendant caused substantial delay in responding to discovery despite Plaintiff’s multiple good faith attempts to obtain the requested discovery.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Business Guidelines, Business Policies

Case Summary

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Feb 20 2020

Key Insight: Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced

Nature of Case: bad faith and fraudulent banking

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery responses, voicemails, loan documents, loan history, and communications

Keywords: fraud, trade secrets, incomplete responses, bad faith

View Case Opinion

Lawson v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2020)

Feb 17 2020

Key Insight: The court denied Plaintiffs’ requests for additional text message discovery or the forensic imaging of cell phone data. The court emphasized the privacy implications of producing broad cell phone data, which often contain “the most intimate of persona details on a host of matters, many of which may be entirely unrelated to issues in specific litigation.”

The court recognized “a more narrowly tailored request, supported by a more specific showing of relevance, might be appropriate.” The court directed the parties to work together to come to an agreement regarding the scope of a “carefully tailored, relevant search for such data.” Only if the parties cannot reach an agreement, would the court intercede.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Law

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, Cell Phone Data

Case Summary

Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Feb 04 2020

Key Insight: The communications with Plaintiff’s consultant were not privileged because the consultant was not a “functional employee.” There is no evidence that the consultant had “information about the company that would assist the company’s attorneys in rendering legal advice.” Additionally, there was no evidence that consultant’s communications with counsel were primarily of a legal nature rather than a business one.

Defendant’s request for sanctions was premature. Rule 37 sanctions are only allowed against a party for disobeys a court issued discovery order. Additionally, no evidence was presented in support of Defendant’s spoliation theory other than a failure to produce documents to its subpoena. Without evidence regarding what was destroyed, when it occurred, the extent of Plaintiff’s involvement, and resulting prejudice, sanctions are inappropriate.

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Tag:Motion to Compel