Motion to Compel – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails or portions of emails withheld were subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel their production; court?s reasoning included discussion of the propriety of withholding email headers and held that redaction of email headers was proper where such headers provided information including: ?the topic of discussion between certain people, the identities of those people, and the time at which the discussion took place.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Mktg. Mgmt., Inc., 2009 WL 3200540 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where request for production was unduly burdensome in light of the cost of production and necessary labor to comply, despite the requesting party?s attempt to narrow the scope, and where the court found the request overly broad and that it sought information irrelevant to the litigation, court declined to compel production in response to the particular request, but granted in part other portions of the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Argus & Assoc. v. Prof?l Benefits Servs., 2009 WL 1297374 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed its inability to timely respond to defendant?s discovery requests was caused by defendant?s failure to provide access to Medi-web website, court rejected claims that defendant had intentionally misled plaintiff but reasoned that defendant?s behavior ?was not exemplary? and that the parties should have addressed the website when developing their discovery plan; court?s order upheld prior evidentiary sanction for late productions of evidence related to claims of breach of duty, but excepted evidence not known to plaintiffs until after accessing Medi-web

Nature of Case: Breach of statutory and contractual duties

Electronic Data Involved: Website

State v. Hall, 2009 WL 1751473 (Minn. Ct. App. June 23, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed (on alternative grounds) trial court?s denial of defendant?s motion to compel production of the Intoxilyzer 500EN source code where defendant failed to present any evidence of the source code?s relevance beyond his ?bare assertion that he must have access to the source code in order to effectively challenge his test result? and thus ?failed to meet the standard necessary for compelled disclosure?

Nature of Case: Driving while impaired

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

V. Mane Fils, S.A. v. Int?l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 WL 1968925 (July 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of post-suit privileged and work product documents, despite defendant?s assertion of the affirmative defense of reliance on advice of counsel and its prior production of pre-suit privileged and work product documents, where the analysis of the willfulness of the infringement focused on pre-litigation activities and where, per a prior court order, defendant had not been segregating or logging such documents and so production would be a significant burden

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2009 WL 2496476 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of detailed information regarding defendant?s electronically stored information and efforts to search the same where such production would be ?extremely burdensome? and unlikely to be of significant value, especially in light of defendants prior production of information regarding the relevant information systems and searches and because plaintiff had not established prejudice as a result of alleged deficiencies in defendants production, among other reasons; footnote addressing format of production reasoned hard copy production of ESI was acceptable because hard copy was a reasonably useable format, because production in electronic format would be burdensome, and because plaintiff?s counsel was already familiar with the hard copy production such that production in electronic form would be ?redundant and wasteful?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to information systems and searches for relevant ESI

Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo, S.P.A., 2009 WL 3757054 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting a lack of any indication that plaintiff objected to production in electronic format and highlighting the fact that electronic discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules, court ordered production of discovery in electronic format and directed the parties to confer to determine the best method of production; upon defendant’s assertion that plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant communications as evidenced by the production of previously unseen communications by a third party, court declined to impose sanctions absent evidence of bad faith but indicated a willingness to re-open depositions upon defendant?s submission of subjects to be pursued therein

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where pro se defendant failed to assert the attorney client privilege when such information was sought and ?selectively disclosed? such information despite warnings from his former counsel, court found defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel; addressing defendant?s argument that his disclosures were ?mistakes? (and thus inadvertently produced) court noted defendant?s failure to seek the return of the confidential communications, his lack of effort to ?rectify or withdraw? any of his deposition disclosures, and that the disclosures occurred following warning from counsel and therefore found that ?any argument?that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications?lacks merit.?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3443563 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

Tag:Motion to Compel