Motion to Compel – Page 92 – Electronic Discovery Law

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Cimaglia v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2009 387266 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for preservation order and immediate production of data related to 2009 railroad crossing failure, finding that 2009 data was not relevant to 2004 incident at issue in light of defendants? lack of intention to present evidence that the system could not fail, and where court found 2009 data was not relevant to rebut defendants? assertions regarding lack of failure in 2004 or admissible to establish ?a routine practice of willful conduct?

Nature of Case: Train collision

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of downloads from event recorders at railroad crossing

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dunkin? Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 WL 1750348 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the information sought to be ?largely relevant and discoverable,? court granted defendants? motions to compel in part and ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a ?workable search protocol to obtain the information sought by the defendants in light of what was discussed at the motion hearing?; specifically, the court noted that defendants? proposed terms could be ?narrowed temporally? and that the scope of the terms could be tailored to individual employees identified by defendants and ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs with a list of employees whose email they wanted searched and the specific terms to be used for each person

Nature of Case: Action to enforce termination of franchise agreement alleging breach of contract and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Intel Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 2030967 (D. Del. July 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted Special Master?s Report and Recommendation requiring plaintiffs to respond to questions regarding the scope of their efforts with regard to the restoration of backup tapes upon finding that such information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, ESI

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2009 WL 5377698 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff represented that defendant had not fulfilled production obligations pursuant to the court?s order, court ordered defendant to respond to questions as to the completeness of its production and other related topics and affirmed its prior order requiring the re-production of 35,000 pages of emails previously produced in hard copy, despite the alleged burden of doing so; court also ordered defendant to respond to questions regarding the production of ESI, including spreadsheets, previously produced in hard copy and noted, ?Understandably, taking an electronic document such as a spreadsheet, printing it, cutting it up, and telling one’s opponent to paste it back together again, when the electronic document can be produced with a keystroke is madness in the world in which we live.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3613511 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in support of its argument that production would be unduly burdensome, eBay provided ?uncertain? estimates of the cost that varied drastically, court held that ?without any clear indication that the costs would be unduly burdensome? the magistrate?s order to compel production was not clearly erroneous; citing Fed. R. 34 for the proposition that the civil rules contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases and case law addressing the same, court held that magistrate did not clearly err in concluding that ?the technical burden to eBay of creating a new dataset for the instant litigation does not excuse production.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of database

Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Emails between employee and counsel using work computer were protected as privileged where employer did not ban personal use of the company email and where employee was unaware of employer?s regular access to his emails and thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy; privilege was not waived, despite employer?s access to the emails, where employee had ?no intention of allowing?his employer, to read the emails? and disclosure was thus inadvertent and where he took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure by deleting the emails as they came into his account and by filing a motion to intervene to assert the privilege upon learning of his employer?s possession of the emails and their possible disclosure in litigation

Nature of Case: Violations of Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Tag:Motion to Compel