Motion to Compel – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 WL 6509348 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to categorize its production and identify which documents were responsive to which requests where plaintiff and defendant previously agreed that defendant would produce all documents from certain custodians without prior review and where plaintiff therefore could not simultaneously benefit from avoiding the risk that defendant would unilaterally filter out responsive documents while at the same time seeking to have defendant ?provide the kind of classification that plaintiff would have gotten had it made a different choice?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Kravetz v. Paul Rever Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1639736 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2009) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: For purposes of determining the number of hours worked by plaintiff following his injury, court granted motion to compel the production of several hard drives and storage devices used by plaintiff to conduct business but limited the inspection to relevant metadata and forbade inspection of the substance of any documents

Nature of Case: Disability claim

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata on hard drives

Crews v. Fishburne, 2009 WL 946876 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering terminating sanctions where plaintiff (and plaintiff?s counsel) delayed production of discovery, made a ?meaningless production? of an unusable CD upon defendant?s motion to compel, redacted documents without notification to defendants and refused to produce court ordered privilege log, and refused to produce unredacted documents despite a court order

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2009 WL 2413631 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff made a preliminary showing of spoliation, including testimonial evidence from defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent that no one talked to her about creating a litigation hold policy and deposition testimony from defendant?s witness that he didn?t save anything, court ordered the production of defendants litigation hold letters (with information unrelated to the litigation hold redacted); court reasoned that ?if defendants deleted emails that should have been preserved, this was a relevant factor for the court to consider when it decided whether it was prohibitively burdensome or expensive for the Defendants to retrieve its archived emails.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold letter

Commonwealth v. Ruddock, 2009 WL 3400927 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Oct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Recognizing that the defendant would be ?severely handicapped? absent expert consultation and finding that requiring defendant?s expert to examine the evidence while in the commonwealth?s custody would burden defendant?s rights to effective assistance of counsel and create the risk that his work product would be accessible to the government, court ordered mirror image of defendant?s hard drive to be produced, but entered a strict protective order limiting its use and dissemination

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 40 (D. Me. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege as to 31 pages of inadvertently produced documents (out of 540) where plaintiff took reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure, including conducting a multi-part privilege review, and where plaintiff acted promptly to rectify the inadvertent production as soon as it became aware of it; in so holding, court rejected defendant?s assertions that plaintiff?s failure to ?independently recognize? the error in production had bearing on the issue and that fairness weighed in favor of waiver where the documents directly supported its defense

Nature of Case: Patent ligitation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email, ESI

United States v. Haymond, 2009 WL 2835398 (D. Okla. Aug. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where law requires denial of a request to copy or reproduce child pornography as long as the material is made ?reasonably available? to defendant and where defendant?s expert claimed an inability to locate the alleged illegal images on the forensic copy of the hard drive to which he was provided access, court indicated reticence to order the production of ?file data? to assist in the location of relevant images on the drive, but ordered defendant?s expert to instead coordinate access to the previously provided copy and for the government to assist his efforts by providing ?software keys? in there possession ? if effort failed, court indicated willingness to consider ordering production of the requested ?sector and file? information to assist defendant?s expert?s examination

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Images on hard drive

Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in response to request for documents indicating an effort to find work, defendant produced a list of emails and screen shots from his computer, but not the emails themselves, court found defendants response inadequate and ordered production of all relevant documents in his possession

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where videotape of relevant incident was stored on computer hard drive until the drive became full and then automatically recorded over and where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or that defendants received any request for preservation prior to the automatic function resulting in loss, court found sanctions were not warranted and denied plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of relevant incident

Tag:Motion to Compel