Motion to Compel – Page 97 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no attorney-client privilege protection preventing production of employee’s email write up of an accident where Illinois law makes clear that ?employees who supply only the factual bases upon which the decisionmakers predicate their opinions? are not within the protected ?control group? pursuant to the relevant legal test and the communication was therefore not privileged; court also found no protection in the work product doctrine where the write up was generated in the usual course of business and was not of a ?legal nature? and ?primarily concerned with legal assistance?

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s email description of accident

Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? request for additional round of pre-certification discovery on defendant?s process of preserving, locating and producing responsive documents, since some electronic documents had been produced and only basis for motion was general ?paucity? of defendant’s document production and ?theoretical possibility? that other electronic documents might exist

Nature of Case: Putative class action against Postmaster General by deaf postal employees

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

Atmel Corp. v. Authentec Inc., 2008 WL 276393 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s Rule 30(b)(6) designee testified that he did not know whether files of CEO or nine key players had been searched for responsive documents, defendant demonstrated a ?serious question? as to the adequacy of plaintiff?s search and court ordered plaintiff to search email and computers of plaintiff and nine key players and submit declaration(s) from most knowledgeable person(s) detailing the searches performed

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2008 WL 928332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ruled that defendant could recover attorney fees and costs relating to motion to compel and forensic inspection of plaintiff?s computer servers, court denied defendant?s subsequent request for $944,902 in attorneys? fees and instead awarded $105,000 as reasonable amount of attorneys? fees incurred; court further ordered plaintiff to pay neutral computer expert only for fees directly related to forensic inspection and not for those related to defendant’s advocacy in the action

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Computer servers

Tag:Motion to Compel