Motion to Compel – Page 97 – Electronic Discovery Law

Newman v. Borders, 257 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent did not have sufficient knowledge of defendant?s document and email retention policies or how searches of its electronically stored information were conducted and where the parties could not reach agreement regarding the proper disclosure or production of such information, court denied plaintiff?s request to take additional depositions and ordered defendant to submit an affidavit responding to nine questions crafted by the court aimed at disclosing the disputed information

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information about email and document retention and seach methodology

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Bennett v. Martin, 2009 WL 4048111 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to adequately respond to discovery in defiance of two court orders, trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of certain of defendants? hard drives to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced but erred in ?not providing adequate protections to safeguard the confidentiality? of defendants? information; case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the protocol described by the appellate court, i.e., the retention of an independent expert to retrieve potentially responsive files to be reviewed by the producing party before production to ensure protection of confidentiality and privilege

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237 SJO (FMOx), 2009 WL 10655335 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff wrongly served Rule 45 subpoena on defendant in attempt to avoid discovery deadline, and subpoena was not limited in terms of time or subject matter but simply requested all emails contained in designated individuals’ in-boxes as of a particular date, and defendant set forth detailed account of burden and specific estimate of staff hours and cost that would be expended to comply with subpoena, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s compliance with subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Entire electronic mailboxes of key players

Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Resolving a number of discovery issues, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails and other stored electronic data concerning plaintiff, stating: ?Plaintiff’s bald assertion that there must be more e-mails than the 100 already produced is not persuasive to the court.?

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

Tag:Motion to Compel