Other Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure and/or Evidence Rule: FRCP 34(a)

Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Key Insight:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel sought missing documents and communications from, and the correction of metadata “issues” from Defendant and its parent company (via third party subpoena), and sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court partially granted the Motion, requiring Defendant to produce responsive communications and documents in its possession, and to conduct a search for such documents and communications, and provide an affidavit detailing the steps it took to search for said items.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel insofar as it sought the metadata of documents responsive to its initial requests for production. Regarding the third party subpoena to Defendant’s parent company, the Court found that the office of the parent company subject to the subpoena was outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and consequently, denied Plaintiff’s Motion insofar as it sought to enforce the subpoena. Finally, Court awarded Plaintiff fees and costs regarding the missing documents, but not the “issues” with metadata.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Metadata, PDFs

Case Summary

Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 24 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,

Case Summary

Alsadi v. Intel Corporation (D. Ariz. 2020)

Jul 17 2020

Key Insight: The meaning of ESI is expansive, includes any type of information stored electronically, and is not limited to data stored on a computer system. Rule 37(e), not inherent authority, is the legal standard for determining whether and what sanctions are appropriate for the loss of discoverable ESI. A negative inference sanction with only be imposed if the spoliating party intentionally lost or destroyed data so it could not be used in litigation.

Nature of Case: Tort

Electronic Data Involved: Detector Device Data

Case Summary

Densen v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (D. Utah 2020)

Jun 29 2020

Key Insight: A forensic imaging of Plaintiff’s electronic devices and cloud based accounts was warranted because Plaintiff lost relevant evidence during the discovery process and continually made misrepresentations regarding this evidence and how it was stored. The forensic imaging would preserve any evidence and possible recover evidence that has been loss. This would not be an invasion of privacy as Plaintiff’s privacy can be adequately protected. A third party service provider can image the devices and collect the data. Counsel would not have access to any of the data until after the court approves a review plan, which would implement additional safeguards to ensure there is no access to irrelevant or private information.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Recording, Cloud Based Account Data, Electronic Device Data

Case Summary

Tag:Other Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure and/or Evidence Rule: FRCP 34(a)