Motion to Compel – Page 90 – Electronic Discovery Law

Newman v. Borders, 257 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent did not have sufficient knowledge of defendant?s document and email retention policies or how searches of its electronically stored information were conducted and where the parties could not reach agreement regarding the proper disclosure or production of such information, court denied plaintiff?s request to take additional depositions and ordered defendant to submit an affidavit responding to nine questions crafted by the court aimed at disclosing the disputed information

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information about email and document retention and seach methodology

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Bennett v. Martin, 2009 WL 4048111 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to adequately respond to discovery in defiance of two court orders, trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of certain of defendants? hard drives to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced but erred in ?not providing adequate protections to safeguard the confidentiality? of defendants? information; case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the protocol described by the appellate court, i.e., the retention of an independent expert to retrieve potentially responsive files to be reviewed by the producing party before production to ensure protection of confidentiality and privilege

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237 SJO (FMOx), 2009 WL 10655335 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Earp v. Peters, 2009 WL 1444707 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel copy of copyrighted software used by defendant?s expert to create an illustrative animated exhibit where defendants produced all underlying data and a copy of the final exhibit to plaintiff and provided their experts for multiple depositions and where defendants argued they could not be compelled to produce a copyrighted software ?simply to spare Plaintiff the expense of acquiring the software or the services of an animator?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Copyrighted software used to create illustrative animation

Boyer v. Gildea, 2009 WL 230646 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails between trustee?s former and current counsel and an email between current counsel and a fact witness subject to protection from disclosure under the work production doctrine and noting defendant?s failure to assert substantial need or inability to obtain equivalent materials by other means, court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of the emails at issue

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding alleging statutory violations by entering into agreement to control price of auction assets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion to Compel