Motion to Compel – Page 96 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Search of Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., 594 F. Supp. 855 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the restrictions of a protective order preventing defendant?s access to its own electronic materials seized pursuant to a government investigation too onerous and unconstitutional in light of defendants need for access to assist in its defense, and where defendants sought only copies of the material seized such that the originals would remain preserved, court granted defendants motion to vacate or amend the protective order to allow access to the materials but indicated willingness to allow government to justify certain restrictions based on a showing of substantial need

Nature of Case: Challenge to governmental freeze on charity’s assets and seizure of documents and other tangible items pursuant to executive order

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of seized ESI

Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 1515609 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to compel defendants to restore backup tapes containing emails that were automatically deleted but where defendants objected to restoration and production due to cost, court denied plaintiff?s motion and ordered defendants to produce relevant data from their ?active stores? first in order to assess the likelihood of finding relevant, discoverable data on the backup tapes; if active stores showed a likelihood of recovery of discoverable data on the backup tapes, court stated that processing at defendants? expense would be appropriate

Nature of Case: Dispute arising between pharamaceutcal suppliers and nursing home operator related to contractual obligations and billing

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Jutai 661 Equipamentos Electronicos, LTDA, 2009 WL 800143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff was obligated to produce responsive ESI but was ?not required to conduct an unduly burdensome comprehensive search of its electronic archives,? court ordered parties to meet and confer ?for the purpose of establishing reasonable limitations on the scope of [Plaintiffs?] obligation to produce responsive electronically-stored information, which may include restricting the search to certain? employees and agreeing upon a list of search terms?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found the requested electronic discovery ?not reasonably accessible? due to burden and cost and because the expense of the discovery outweighed the likely benefit and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of relevant emails where defendant stated they had already retrieved and produced all responsive emails from key individuals containing search terms proposed by plaintiff?s counsel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 2777334 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ruled on defendant?s objections to magistrate?s order, including, among other things, addressing issues of privilege pursuant to FRE 502(b) and analyzing the propriety of claims of privilege as to certain categories of documents, including those stored on a server that was available to all employees; court also ordered each party to bear the costs of production for the documents it requested (a direct contradiction to the presumption that the responding party must bear the expense of compliance) where such an order would ?curb [the] bilateral tendency? to broaden discovery demands to include both important and marginal information ?whose primary utility would be found in the burden and cost of production to the other side?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 4069279 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where upon the court?s order to produced any privileged documents not properly and timely logged plaintiff produced only certain documents and redacted others, and where plaintiff explained that the withheld and redacted documents were duplicates of documents previously determined to be privileged by the court, court denied defendant?s motion to compel and stated: ?Where a written communication is found to be protected by the attorney-client privilege, an identical copy of that document, when challenged, ought to yield the same result, despite a different indexing number for the copy. To treat identical copies of the same document differently based solely on the numerical designation in a data log elevates form over substance in the worst way.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged materials

Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Upon in camera review of all documents produced to plaintiff by Facebook pursuant to subpoena, and in response to plaintiff?s objection to producing all such documents on the grounds that many were irrelevant and immaterial, court found ?no meaningful distinction? between the pages produced and the pages withheld and stated that ?Facebook usage depicts a snapshot of the user?s relationship and state of mind at the time of the content?s posting? and that ?relevance is more in the eye of the beholder? such that production should not be limited to plaintiff?s determination of what may be ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered the production of all documents produced by Facebook to defendants, rather than the smaller subset previously provided

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged bullying and harassment of private school student

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2009 WL 1033357 (N.D. Ill Apr. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court found Magistrate Judge?s decisions denying plaintiff?s motions to compel third-party?s production of forensic image of its computer systems or a report from those systems ?were neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law? where Magistrate denied the motions in light of plaintiffs lack of diligence, contradictory opinions from experts, and factual evidence indicating a minimal amount of relevant data on third-party?s system and where Magistrate was therefore within the scope of her discretion

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic image of hard drive

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

Tag:Motion to Compel