Motion to Compel – Page 92 – Electronic Discovery Law

Espy v. Info. Tech., 2009 WL 2912506 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing several discovery disputes, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce a CD containing the contents of a secure website related to defendant?s attempt to sell the company following an in camera review of the same; rejecting defendant?s arguments that 28,000 pages of uncategorized electronic documents without bates stamps were produced as kept in the usual course of business, court ordered defendant?s to identify ?by index or otherwise? specific documents responsive to plaintiff?s request

Nature of Case: Suit seeking commission for sales made as employee of defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Dunning, 2009 WL 2815739 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of ?information that is located in the unallocated or deleted space? of the relevant hard drive where defendant was in possession of ?precisely the same images of the hard drives? that the plaintiff possessed, where plaintiff was not in possession, custody, or control of information not already produced to defendant, and where ?Defendant [was] just as capable as the Government is of extracting the information for trial.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Data from unallocated space on hard drive

Sajda v. Brewton, 2009 WL 4061356 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to compel documents withheld as privileged where plaintiff sought the “sideswipe report” created by defendants following the relevant accident and where the court found the report had been prepared in the ordinary course of business and was not therefore protected as privileged; as to the computer template used to generate the report, the court found ?the computer template?appears to be a regularly generated report? and thus was not subject to attorney-client or work product protection; court declined to compel production of the ?DOT Accident Register? where such production was prohibited by statute

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 997268 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants believed plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant electronic documents and later learned of plaintiff?s alleged failure to adequately search for such documents, court denied defendant?s motion to compel where defendants failed to bring the motion until after the close of discovery and failed to raise the issue at several pre-trial conferences and where plaintiff affirmatively represented it had produced all responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sanders v. Kohler, 2009 WL 4067265 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D.G ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, 2009 WL 455266 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion seeking production of emails from particular custodians and rejected defendant?s argument that cost of production should be shifted where defendants did not challenge the relevance of the emails at issue, where plaintiff?s ?reasonably limited their request to avoid undue burden? to defendants, and where the court?s consideration of the Zubulake factors resulted in a determination that cost shifting was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Class action against DSHS

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Infor Global Solutions, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1421576 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed electronic documents could not be located due to changes in the computer system upon merging and because of a lack of back up tapes for the relevant time period, court found that plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for its inability to produce, including explaining what happened to the files that previously existed, stated that plaintiff ?needs to show it has conducted a diligent search for responsive documents? and ordered plaintiffs to conduct further searches for responsive documents

Nature of Case: Recovery of legal expenses

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., 2009 WL 1765295 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs responded to defendants? requests for production by producing 73 CDs containing the entire universe of documents from an underlying litigation, court held that plaintiffs ?cannot fulfill their discovery obligation?without referencing which specific documents were responsive to which specific request? and ordered plaintiffs to provide defendants with a list of documents responsive to each request

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, failure to indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Special master recommended granting in part plaintiff?s motion to compel documents withheld as subject to attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine for several reasons, including that the privilege log was incomplete based on plaintiff?s failure to log each message in an email string as a separate and unique document pursuant to Rhoads Industries, Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96404 (E.D.PA.2008); special master noted, ?it would be impossible for the party seeking discovery to challenge a communication or document that he does not know exists?; recommendation includes discussions of attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the common interest privilege

Nature of Case: Violations of Lanham Act, Violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and commercial disparagement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel