Motion to Compel – Page 81 – Electronic Discovery Law

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 502721 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants bore the burden of persuasion when asserting that ESI was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost and where defendants? supported their claim of inaccessibility with only one declaration which lacked specific information regarding defendants? storage practices, the number of back-up or archival systems that would need to be searched, or defendants? capability to retrieve information from those back-up or archival systems, the court denied defendants? Motion for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 79 (D. Del. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Evaluating the adequacy of plaintiff?s search for a specific category of information, the court noted that the test to determine the appropriateness of a search is whether the search ?could?have been expected to produce the information requested?, determined that the information sought was likely to be found in the emails of the inventors of a specific patent, and ordered plaintiff to search the emails of the relevant inventors within a date range prescribed by the court; opinion included brief discussion of keyword searching and noted, “[n]either lawyers nor judges are generally qualified to opine that certain search terms or files are more or less likely to produce information than those keywords or data actually used or reviewed.”

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 WL 2605855 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had produced millions of pages organized as maintained in the usual course of business, court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to precisely match the documents produced with the request to which they responded, but, citing plaintiff?s ?demonstrated ample resources?, ordered plaintiff to ?generally match up its documents with defendant?s requests by letter, chart, or some form of index? within 14 days; court declined to compel production of metadata that did not exist and ?OCR information? but ordered plaintiff to provide ?custodian information? as to those documents which lacked it

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Daugherty v. Murphy, 2010 WL 4877720 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants established that the requested data extracts proposed by plaintiffs would take 5 months and ?about $100,000? the court granted defendants? motion for a protective order and ordered defendants to execute the data extractions which they had proposed and which they represented would be far less burdensome; court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendants? production of ?file layouts? for the purpose of revising their request for data extracts but acknowledged that defendants? failure to previously produce ?file layouts? was a serious issue and its wiliness to address sanctions upon a motion from plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Data extracts

Susquehanna Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2012, 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?

Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held plaintiff?s and third party?s claims of privilege as to redacted and withheld portions of presentations waived where plaintiff and third party failed to meet their burden of establishing the claim of privilege by failing to establish that all persons to whom the presentation was disseminated or shown were ?individuals who needed to know the information contained in the presentation? as would be required to maintain the privilege

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Presentations

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Tag:Motion to Compel