Motion to Compel – Page 87 – Electronic Discovery Law

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

Pulse Eng?g. Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 WL 3234177 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of redacted portions of emails where the emails were prepared in anticipation of litigation and where dissemination to third party with common legal interest did not constitute waiver pursuant to the Common Interest Doctrine (commonality of interested existed where third party was responsible for manufacturing and supplying the allegedly infringing filter)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

Donnelly v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 5551377 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to produce a list of all persons it called on cellular telephones within particular area codes, despite defendant?s claim that such production would be unduly burdensome and minimally probative and that it would need to create special programs to extract the information which would take ?several hundred hours,? where court determined plaintiff?s need for the information outweighed the burden in producing it

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

State v. Ross, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where transcript of online chat was erased from law enforcement hard drive following ?computer problems? but where there was no evidence of bad faith, appellate court affirmed denial of defendant?s motion for production of the hard drive and reasoned that State could authenticate the printed transcripts by offering testimony from personal knowledge that the document was what it was claimed to be pursuant to ER 901(B)(1) or through the presentation of ?evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result? pursuant to ER 901(B)(9)

Nature of Case: Attemtped unlawful sexual conduct with a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, online chat transcripts

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the burden of searching all possible locations for a mention of plaintiff was overly burdensome in light of plaintiff?s 17 year history with the company and the unlikely possibility that additional relevant information would be discovered and where plaintiff failed to identify with particularity any documents she believed to exist or category of information likely to contain relevant information, among other things, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Bernini, 2009 WL 922471 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court of Appeals found ?[t]he respondent judge erred as a matter of law and abused her discretion in ordering the state to produce source code material for the Intoxilyzer 8000 that it did not possess and had been unable to obtain, without any evidence the state had “better access” than defendants to what CMI maintains are trade secrets? and vacated trial court?s order directing the state to obtain the requested code

Nature of Case: Consolidated appeal of defendants charged with DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Source code of Intoxilyzer 8000

Tag:Motion to Compel