Header graphic for print
Electronic Discovery Law Blog Legal issues, news, and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Monthly Archives: June 2011

Judge Scheindlin Withdraws Opinion in Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 10 Civ. 3488 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2011)

On February 7, 2011, Judge Scheindlin issued an opinion in which she concluded that “metadata maintained by the agency as a part of an electronic record is presumptively producible under FOIA, unless the agency demonstrates that such metadata is not ‘readily reproducible.’” (See a summary of that opinion here.) The opinion also provided substantial guidance regarding the “minimum fields of metadata that should accompany any production of a significant collection of ESI.” That opinion has now been withdrawn.

Court Rejects Objection to Portion of Monetary Sanctions, Orders Payment of $571,440.12 by July 15

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. MJG-06-2662 (D. Md. June 15, 2011) In another chapter of the Victor Stanley saga, the defendant objected to payment of the remaining balance of the monetary sanction ordered as a result of its spoliation of evidence (see Victor Stanley II).  Specifically, the defendant had been ordered to… Continue Reading

Court Orders Monetary Sanctions Against Client and Counsel for Discovery Violations, Including Counsel’s Failure to Make “Reasonable Inquiry”

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. C09-1769 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2011)

For discovery violations, including (among others) false certification that all relevant records were kept in paper format, delayed and inadequate production and failure to search for documents in a timely manner, and counsel’s failure to adequately familiarize himself with his client’s document retention practices or to assist in the production of documents, the court imposed monetary sanctions equal to the amount expended because of plaintiff’s discovery abuses, to be born by plaintiff and its counsel jointly and severally.

No Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Disaster Recovery Back-up Tapes where Other Preservation Efforts were Reasonable “In the Context of This Case”

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Gaalla v. Citizens Med. Ctr., No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) Plaintiffs moved for sanctions based on defendant’s failure to preserve its disaster recovery back-up tapes, which were overwritten every seven or fourteen days, even after the filing of this lawsuit.  Further, “as the briefing developed,” plaintiffs “appeared to contend” that… Continue Reading

Court Grants Motion to Compel, Orders Forensic Imaging of Defendants’ Computers

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Innis, No. 4:09-cv-061, 2011 WL 2174045 (D.N.D. June 2, 2011) Plaintiff alleged that a former employee had downloaded its confidential information and used it to “jump start” his own competing company.  Defendant Innis acknowledged that he had downloaded the information, but denied accessing or using it as plaintiff alleged.  Forensic examination… Continue Reading

For Discovery Violation of “Exotic Magnitude”, Court Denies Reconsideration of Order Compelling Production and Finding that Objections were Waived

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

DL v. District of Columbia, 2011 WL 1770468 (D.D.C. May 9, 2011)

Upon learning that the District intended to produce email on a rolling basis even after trial had concluded despite two prior court orders compelling production, the court held that the District had waived all objections, including privileges, and ordered production within one week of the close of trial. Defendants moved for reconsideration. Likening the proposed production to “a plane with landing gear that deploys just after touchdown, or a stick of dynamite with a unique fuse that ignites only after it explodes,” the court denied the motion.