Electronic Discovery Law Firm : K&L Gates : Electronic Discovery Law

Accessdata Corp. v. ALSTE Tech. GMBH, 2010 WL 3184777 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010)

In this breach of contract case, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant (a German company) to produce responsive third-party, personal data, despite objections that such production would violate German law.  The court also granted plaintiff’s motion to compel the re-production of previously produced electronic discovery where defendant’s initial production did not conform to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Howell Educ. Assoc. MEA/NEA v. Howell Board of Educ., 2010 WL 290515 (Mich. Jan. 26, 2010)

In this “reverse” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, the trial court held that personal emails generated by and stored on a public school’s email system were public records subject to FOIA.  Upon plaintiffs’ appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that such emails were not public records and thus not subject to FOIA.  Moreover, the appellate court concluded that violation of an acceptable use policy barring personal use of an email system – “at least one that does not expressly provide that emails are subject to FOIA” – does not render personal emails subject to FOIA.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rodriguez-Torres v. Gov. Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 2010 WL 174156 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2010)

In this employment discrimination case, the court found the electronically stored information (“ESI”) requested by the plaintiffs “not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden and cost” and that plaintiffs had failed to show good cause to compel production of the ESI and denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order)

Issued earlier this month, Judge Shira Scheindlin’s opinion in Pension Comm. of Univer. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, addresses the issues of parties’ preservation obligations and spoliation in great detail, including detailed and informative discussions of the varying levels of culpability in failing to uphold discovery obligations, the required burdens of proof, and the appropriate remedies upon a finding of spoliation.

The opinion was summed up by Judge Scheindlin in the introduction to her opinion:

By now, it should be abundantly clear that the duty to preserve means what it says and that a failure to preserve records-paper or electronic-and to search in the right places for those records, will inevitably result in the spoliation of evidence.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 5218035 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2009);  Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010)

Following her finding that “[Bray & Gillespie], through counsel, acted willfully and in bad faith in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s orders” by failing to make reasonable efforts to search for and produce documents in response to court orders and by making repeated misrepresentations to the court, among other things, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s claims be stricken and that the case be dismissed with prejudice.  (For additional details of plaintiff’s discovery abuses, click here to be taken to a summary of a prior opinion in this case.)  On review of that recommendation, the District Court Judge found total dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims “an excessive remedy” and instead ordered the dismissal of all claims for damages arising from the alleged interruption of business at the Treasure Island Property and for the plaintiff to pay $75,000 to the defendant for expenses incurred in pursuit of its motion for sanctions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Starbucks Corp. v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 4730798 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009)

In this recently released opinion written early last year, the defendant, ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”), sought to avoid its obligation to produce archived emails by arguing the emails were not “reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,” as that term is used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).  In support of this position, ADT’s Manager of Information Technology, John Mitchell, provided various estimates regarding the potential cost of time and money to restore the requested email.  In response, the plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”), provided its own estimates of the potential cost which were significantly lower than those proffered by ADT.  Finding Mitchell had “at every turn, provided exaggerated reasons and exaggerated expenses as to why ADT allegedly cannot and should not be ordered to comply with its discovery obligations,” the court declined to find the information at issue “not reasonably accessible.”  Moreover, the court indicated that even had the information been deemed not reasonably accessible, the court would have found that good cause existed to order the production.  Accordingly, Starbuck’s motion to compel was granted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Cornwell v. N. Ohio Surgical Ctr., 2009 WL 5174172 (Ohio. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2009)

In this wrongful death litigation, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to allow his forensic expert to create a mirror image of defendants’ hard drives.  Plaintiff asserted that examination of the drives would reveal evidence of defendants’ willful alteration or deletion of relevant evidence.  The court granted the motion despite defendants’ objections that such access would violate statutory and common law prohibitions against the disclosure of confidential medical information and that such access was not authorized under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.  Defendants appealed.  On appeal, the order of the trial court was affirmed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TR Investors, LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009) (Unpublished)

In this case, defendant Arie Genger was held in contempt and found to have intentionally spoliated relevant documents in violation of a court order following his instruction to his personal IT consultant to wipe the unallocated space of his company’s computer system which his consultant then carried out.  Declining to impose terminating sanctions, the court instead ordered that Genger produce 10 documents previously subject to a claim of privilege, that the burden of persuasion as to Genger’s affirmative defenses and counter-claims be raised one level, that Genger was precluded from prevailing on any material factual issue by reason of his testimony alone, and that Genger pay for plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $750,000.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)

When responding to an email communication from his attorney, defendant mistakenly sent his message to a third party.  As a result, the email was eventually provided to opposing counsel in the litigation.  Plaintiff’s counsel refused to return the email upon defense counsel’s request and filed a motion for a protective order to which the email was attached.  Defendants then filed a motion to exclude plaintiff’s use of the email.  Defendant David Muhs explained that the mistaken transmission occurred when the autofill feature on his email program supplied the wrong address in place of that of the intended recipient.  Conducting its analysis pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502, the court determined that privilege had not been waived.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P’ship v. Simon Prop. Group, 2009 WL 4283086 (D. Nev. Nov. 30, 2009)

Following a determination that defendants participated in improper ex parte communications with an independent, court-appointed forensic expert and thus destroyed its impartiality, the district court held that defendants had forfeited their right to a forensic examination of plaintiffs’ relevant computer systems and modified its prior order to deny defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions with prejudice.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Magaña v. Hyundai Motor Am., 220 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2009)

Plaintiff sustained injuries in an automobile accident that he alleged were caused in part by a defective seat design which allowed the seat to collapse.  The case went to trial and plaintiff was awarded $8,000,000.  The verdict was reversed on appeal for reasons related to plaintiff’s expert’s testimony and a new trial on the issue of liability was ordered.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, S163335 (Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

In 2000, Costco hired outside counsel to provide legal advice regarding the applicability of certain wage and overtime laws to its warehouse managers.  In furtherance of providing such advice, counsel spoke with two managers Costco had made available to her.  Thereafter, she provided Costco with a 22-page opinion letter addressing the question at issue.  Several years later, plaintiffs in a class action against Costco sought to compel production of the relevant opinion letter arguing that the letter contained unprivileged information and that Costco had placed the contents in issue thereby waiving the privilege.

To resolve the question, the court ordered the letter be reviewed by a discovery referee who subsequently recommended production of the letter with heavy redactions.  The referee reasoned that the factual information therein was not privileged and that while interviewing the two managers, the attorney had acted not as an attorney but as a fact finder.  The trial court adopted the recommendation and ordered the letter produced.  On appeal (and without ruling on the merits of the trial court’s order or its decision to refer the letter to a discovery referee for review), the court affirmed the order reasoning that Costco had failed to establish that the production would cause irreparable harm.  The issue was appealed to the Supreme Court of California.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Calixto v. Watson Bowman Acme Corp., 2009 WL 3823390 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009)

In this breach of contract litigation, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Watson Bowman Acme Corporation (“WABO”) to “remedy its spoliation of documents” by restoring and searching back-up tapes that potentially contained copies of emails that were deleted.  Plaintiff also sought sanctions for the alleged spoliation.  The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the restoration of all back-up tapes, following its determination that the burden and cost of such restoration rendered the documents not reasonably accessible and upon finding that plaintiff failed to establish good cause for such a search.  However, as to a one tape determined to potentially contain the relevant deleted emails, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered the tape be restored and searched.  Regarding sanctions, the court denied plaintiff’s motion absent a clear indication of a duty to preserve at the time of the deletion and absent any evidence of bad faith.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Alamar Ranch, LLC v. City of Boise, 2009 WL 3669741 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009)

In this case arising from a land use and permitting dispute, the court ruled that emails sent by a non-party to her attorney using her work computer and work-assigned email address were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.  In so holding, the court relied in large part upon the existence of company policy which put the employee on notice that her emails were subject to monitoring and were not confidential.  Emails sent by the attorney to the employee’s work account were likewise unprotected where the attorney was on notice of the employee’s use of company email and should have recognized the risk that such emails were unprotected.  As for emails sent to the attorney by other clients and copied to the employee, the court reasoned that such emails retained their privileged status where the senders (non-employees of the relevant company) were not on notice of the potential exposure of their emails to outside scrutiny.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In re Global Power Equip. Group, Inc., 418 B.R. 833 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)

Upon a motion to compel production of documents from claimant, a foreign corporation, the court found the documents at issue to be within the control of the claimant and, applying the “comity analysis” as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, determined that the contested matter “should and shall be conducted under the Federal Rules and not under the Hague Evidence Convention.”  Accordingly, the motion to compel was granted and claimant was ordered to comply with the contested discovery requests “in accordance with the Federal Rules.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Swofford v. Eslinger, NO. 6:08-cv-00066-Orl-35DAB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2009)

In April 2006, plaintiff Swofford was shot seven times, on his own property, by two deputies in pursuit of two burglary suspects.  Plaintiffs brought suit against the sheriff in his official capacity and against the deputies individually.  In August 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the first of two letters requesting the preservation of relevant evidence.  In February 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second preservation letter and a notice of claim as required by Florida statute.  Defendants did not deny receipt of these letters, but evidence was nonetheless destroyed.

Despite defendants’ receipt of the letters, no litigation holds were ever issued.  Rather, the letters were forwarded to six senior employees of the Seminole Country Sherriff’s Office (“SCSO”), including named defendant Sherriff Eslinger.  No preservation instructions were provided to the deputies involved in the shooting.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009)

In an en banc opinion, the Supreme Court of Arizona vacated (in part) an opinion from the Court of Appeals and held that “if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.”  [Emphasis added.]

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Peschel v. City of Missoula, 2009 WL 3364460 (D. Mont. Oct. 15, 2009)

In this case arising from defendant’s claims that he was wrongfully arrested and that the officers used excessive force, among other things, defendant sought sanctions for the city’s failure to preserve the video of the arrest that was recorded by a camera in one of the officer’s cars.  Finding that the video was lost as a result of the city’s recklessness, the court granted defendant’s motion for sanctions and “designat[ed], for purposes of the case, that the arresting officers used unreasonable force to effect the arrest of [defendant].” 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mirbeau Geneva Lake, LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 3347101 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)

In this litigation over the attempted development of land in the City of Lake Geneva, plaintiff sought to compel production of all of defendants’ “computers and other electronic storage devices” for forensic examination.  In support of the motion, plaintiff argued that defendants’ offer to produce emails in “paper form” was insufficient and that defendants were not properly preserving data for production.  Noting plaintiff’s failure to make a sufficient showing in favor of such production and the parties’ failure to cooperate to reach agreement on the issues presented, the court denied plaintiff’s motion.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (2009)

Defendant Ian J. Clark was found guilty of murdering a two year old girl left in his care and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.  On appeal, Clark argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence from his MySpace account in violation of Ind. R. Evid. 404(b).  Taking up the “novel question” of the propriety of admitting such evidence, the Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence, particularly where Clark’s own testimony made his character a “central issue” of his defense.  The verdict and sentence were therefore affirmed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

During the course of discovery in this copyright infringement case, several disputes arose related to the burdensome nature of the parties’ respective requests for production.  The court initially “urged the parties” to work cooperatively to develop agreed search terms to be utilized by MP3tunes in its search for responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”).  After an initial failure to agree (and MP3tunes unilateral decision to search for ESI using only one search term), the court again directed counsel to cooperate to agree on search terms for MP3tunes use.  Again, the parties failed to reach agreement and sought intervention by the court on a number of issues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Despite finding that “Defendants have unquestionably breached a duty to preserve emails in this case,” the court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where “Plaintiff ultimately failed to demonstrate that any destroyed emails would have been favorable to her position.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Leor Exploration & Prod., LLC v. Aguiar, 2009 WL 3097207 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2009)

In this case, the court overruled the determination of the special master and held that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to emails transmitted through plaintiff’s server and thus, no attorney-client privilege as to those communications.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

U.S. v. Sensient Colors, Inc., 2009 WL 2905474 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2009)

Defendant moved to compel the production of 214 inadvertently produced documents.  Plaintiff objected, arguing that the parties’ discovery agreement precluded the waiver of privilege as to inadvertently produced documents.  Noting courts’ general disapproval of “blanket” disclosure provisions and finding that the parties’ agreement did not in fact preclude waiver in all situations, the court analyzed the question of waiver pursuant to FRE 502.  The court identified three categories of inadvertently produced documents based upon the timing of the notice of their inadvertent production to the plaintiff.  The court found privilege was not waived as to the first category of documents (those brought to plaintiff’s attention the earliest).  However, noting that plaintiff was on notice of the deficiencies of his process as a result of the first notification of inadvertent production, and that despite such notice plaintiff failed to “re-assess” its document production, the court found the privilege had been waived as to the remaining categories.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 2883057 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2009)

Plaintiff Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. (“SMS”) moved for spoliation sanctions alleging that defendants, including individual defendants Smith, Sherouse and Brody, spoliated data by deleting it from their BlackBerries and laptops.  Defendants denied the allegations and argued that no evidence was destroyed because all of the data on the individual defendants’ laptops and BlackBerries was stored on servers.  Further, defendants argued that hard copies of the relevant emails were produced to SMS and it was therefore irrelevant whether any information was deleted.  The allegations regarding the laptops were eventually resolved by corporate defendant Thermal Engineering Construction Services, Inc.’s, (“TEI”), explanation that the laptops were configured so that the individual defendants’ emails would reside on the server.  As to the BlackBerries, however, the court found the individual defendants had deleted the data in bad faith and ordered an adverse inference to be provided to the jury at trial.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009)

In this mandamus proceeding, the Supreme Court of Texas found that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering four of defendant’s employees to turn over their computer hard drives for forensic examination.

In 2007, after adding Weekley Homes, L.P. (“Weekley”) to an already pending breach of contract suit, plaintiff HFG Enclave Land Interests, Ltd. (“HFG”) served requests for production, including requests for “a broad variety of emails.”  Weekley produced thirty-one responsive emails.  Unconvinced that more correspondence did not exist, HFG filed a motion to compel additional searching.  At hearing on the issue, Weekley explained that the employees’ inboxes were limited in size and, when full, had to be emptied by manual deletion of the messages therein.  Accordingly, Weekley’s employees were “force[d]” to clear out their inboxes regularly.  Emails would be saved only if backed up by an employee to his or her hard drive.  The deleted emails were saved on backup tapes for thirty days.  The trial court denied HFG’s motion.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Green v. McClendon, 2009 WL 2496275 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Upon one of the defendant’s revelation that she had lost all original versions of electronic files when she transferred those files to CD and then reinstalled her operating system, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions.  Finding that the defendant and counsel violated their duty to preserve evidence, the court authorized additional discovery and awarded plaintiff his costs, including attorney’s fees, to be paid by the defendant and her counsel.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coburn Group, LLC v. Whitecap Advisors, LLC, 640 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

In this case, defendant, Whitecap Advisors LLC (“Whitecap”), sought to compel the return of one privileged email and to strike deposition testimony regarding the same.  Plaintiff, Coburn Group, LLC (“Coburn”), resisted returning the email arguing that it was not protected work product, that privilege was waived by production, and that Coburn was “entitled” to the email because it revealed that Whitecap had mislead the court.  Finding that the email was protected as work product and that no waiver occurred, the court granted Whitecap’s motion.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2407754 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2009)

In this case, plaintiff Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC (“B&G”) sought to recover payment for, among other things, business interruption losses allegedly suffered as the result of damage from Hurricane Jeanne in 2004.  Defendant, Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”), refused payment for several reasons, including its belief that the damages alleged were caused by two prior hurricanes and that the hotel at issue was not open at the relevant time.  In this opinion, one of several addressing discovery issues in this ongoing litigation, the court addressed Lexington’s motion for sanctions following numerous discovery violations on the part of B&G and its counsel.  The alleged violations revolved around the untimely production of “room folios” – evidence which would have shown who, if anyone, had stayed at the hotel following Hurricane Jeanne, and thus, the extent of the business interruption losses sustained.  Finding in favor of Lexington, the court prohibited B&G from presenting evidence in support of their claim for business interruption losses, struck the portions of their expert’s report addressing that claim, and ordered B&G and counsel jointly and severally liable for Lexington’s reasonable expenses.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2009 WL 2370623 (S.D. Ohio July 30, 2009)

Plaintiff’s 1300-page complaint alleged numerous violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act against multiple defendants for sending email messages which conveyed a commercial advertisement and displayed the name and/or logo of “Dish Network.”  In the course of discovery, Plaintiff sought sanctions for three defendants’ alleged failure to preserve website links to images contained in those messages.  Because paper copies of the messages were preserved and available and because Plaintiff did not establish defendants’ duty to maintain certain websites, the court found Plaintiff failed to establish bad faith.  Moreover, Plaintiff failed to establish that the images at issue were necessary or relevant to his claims.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was denied.  [Note:  Defendant E-Management Group, Inc. (“E-Management”) was the only defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s motion(s). Nonetheless, the court denied sanctions as to all three accused defendants upon analysis of E-Management’s arguments and defenses.]

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sonomedica, Inc. v. Mohler, 2009 WL 2371507 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2009)

In this case, the court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and found third parties in contempt for violation of the court’s orders, including the spoliation of electronically stored information on hard drives they were ordered to produce, and ordered them to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $108,212.15 and for the case to be referred to the United States Attorney for investigation of possible criminal sanctions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 2242395 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2009)

Defendant Thermal Engineering Construction Services, Inc. (“TEI”) moved for spoliation sanctions alleging that plaintiff failed to adopt a proper litigation hold procedure which resulted in the automatic deletion of email and other electronically stored information (“ESI”) from plaintiff’s backup tapes.  Specifically, plaintiff failed to preserve information from Defendant Norman Brody following his last day of employment with plaintiff.  Despite finding that plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant evidence at the time of the loss, the court declined to impose sanctions absent a showing of bad faith and denied TEI’s motion.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pinstripe, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., 2009 WL 2252131 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2009)

In this case, defendant Manpower, Inc. (“Manpower”) failed to distribute the litigation hold notice that was provided to it by counsel and failed to monitor compliance with oral instructions to some managers.  As a result, “possibly relevant emails were destroyed.”  Despite significant efforts, the deleted data could not be recovered from the system.  Approximately 700 emails were recovered from their recipients, however, and the emails’ attachments were preserved on “another server.”  Plaintiff sought sanctions against Manpower and its counsel.  Specifically, plaintiff sought default judgment or an adverse inference instruction.  The court denied plaintiff’s motion as to counsel, but agreed that some sanctions were warranted against Manpower.  Accordingly, the court’s order allowed plaintiffs to re-open depositions to address the late production and to seek additional relief if the need arose and ordered Manpower to contribute $2500 to the local bar association to support a seminar on litigation hold orders and preservation of electronic data.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 973 A.2d 390 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2009)

Reversing the trial court, the appellate court found that an employee’s communications with her attorney via her personal email account were privileged despite the use of her work computer to send those communications.  The trial court previously ruled that the communications were not privileged as a result of the employee’s use of her work computer, in light of her employer’s policy that, according to the trial court, “put plaintiff on sufficient notice that her emails would be viewed as company property.”  In reversing the trial court, the appellate court found that “the policies undergirding the attorney-client privilege substantially outweigh the employer’s interest in enforcement of its unilaterally imposed regulation.” 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

KCH Servs., Inc. v. Vanaire, Inc., 2009 WL 2216601 (W.D. Ky. July 22, 2009)

Plaintiff moved the court for default judgment, sanctions, or an adverse inference instruction based on defendant Vanaire’s spoliation of evidence, including the deletion of software and electronically stored information (“ESI”) from its computers.  Specifically, following a phone call from plaintiff’s president indicating his belief that Vanaire was using plaintiff’s software, defendant Guillermo Vanegas instructed Vanaire employees to delete any software “that he did not purchase or did not own.”  Additionally, even after plaintiff filed its complaint and sent an evidence-preservation letter, Vanaire failed in its duty to preserve “by continuing to delete and overwrite” ESI.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

In this case, the Government sought to discover the contents of defendant’s email sent or received at a Microsoft/MSN Hotmail account. Accordingly, the Government executed a trial subpoena seeking production of “‘the contents of electronic communications (not in ‘electronic storage’ as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(7)’ and specified that the ‘[c]ontents of communications not in ‘electronic storage’ include the contents of previously opened or sent mail.’”  Microsoft declined to produce the content of previously accessed, viewed, or downloaded emails that had been stored for fewer than 181 days citing precedent from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that such production would require a warrant.  Because Microsoft is located within the Ninth Circuit, it felt it must comply.  The Government sought to compel production.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2009 WL 2168892 (D. Kan. July 21, 2009)

This matter was before the court on plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  Previously, the court denied a motion to compel without prejudice for reasons including plaintiffs’ failure to establish the relevance of the material requested and defendant’s estimated cost to comply and directed the parties to address recently enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 in any future discussions of production and costs.  The parties were unable to reach agreement regarding production, and plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel.  Upon finding that plaintiffs had established the relevance of the material requested and that defendant’s estimated costs of production were “greatly exaggerated,” the court granted the motion.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009)

In this case arising from a claim for breach of contract, plaintiff Goodman alleged that defendant Praxair Services, Inc. (formerly Tracer) (“Tracer/PSI”) spoliated relevant data and was deserving of sanctions.  Specifically, Goodman alleged that Tracer/PSI violated is duty to preserve when it failed to implement a litigation hold resulting in a significant loss of data, including the contents of relevant hard drives and emails, and where its CEO deliberately deleted data, among other things.  Goodman also sought sanctions for the spoliation of Tracer/PSI’s third-party consultants’ files.  The court granted in part and denied in part Goodman’s motion and ordered an adverse inference against Tracer/PSI.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chen v. Dougherty, 2009 WL 1938961 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2009)

Following a verdict in their favor, plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees as provided by law.  Finding that plaintiffs were the “prevailing parties” under the relevant fee shifting statute, the court indicated its willingness to approve the attorneys’ requested hourly rates, with one exception.  Regarding the time spent by one attorney on discovery, the court ordered the requested rate to be reduced upon finding that her “inhibited ability to participate meaningfully in electronic discovery” was indicative of “novice skills in this area” and not “experienced counsel.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2009 WL 1873589 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009)

In this copyright infringement case, plaintiffs alleged defendants committed egregious discovery violations deserving of terminating sanctions.  The violations included wiping relevant hard drives of its employees, failing to preserve and produce relevant emails, providing misleading responses to discovery, and violating two court orders, among other things.  Finding plaintiffs’ accusations credible in light of the evidence presented, the court denied their request for terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from asserting their affirmative defense of protection under the relevant statute’s safe harbor provision.  The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Valeo Elec. Sys., Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg. Co., 2009 WL 1803216 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2009)

In response to defendant’s requests for production, plaintiff produced over 270,000 pages of emails and other electronically stored information (“ESI”) as they were kept in the usual course of business.  Plaintiff also produced two indices which identified the custodian for each bates range, the location the file was stored, document titles and “re:” lines of emails, and additional information regarding the creation and storage of the information produced.  Defendant argued that despite the information provided, it nonetheless had to open and review each file individually and alleged that plaintiff named the files “innocuously” in order to frustrate its review.  Discussing the relevant burden to a party producing its files as maintained in the usual course of business, the court found plaintiff had satisfied its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and the parties’ agreement and denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to organize the data into 28 specific categories.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 2009 WL 1764829 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2009)

This case arose from plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s product caused plaintiff to develop a degenerative cartilage condition (chondrolysis), that defendant was aware of the risk of such a condition, and that defendant is therefore liable for plaintiff’s damages resulting from the condition.  In the course of discovery, plaintiff became concerned that defendant’s production of electronic discovery was incomplete and filed a motion to compel.  Acknowledging the validity of plaintiff’s concern but noting the unlikely possibility that any material new documents were located in defendant’s email archives or on disaster recovery tapes, the court concluded that plaintiff may, but was not required to, hire an outside vendor “for the purpose of confirming the completeness of [defendant’s] production, at is own expense” subject to specific conditions enumerated by the court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2009 WL 1748526 (D. Mass. June 22, 2009)

In a comprehensive yet brief opinion, the court addressed several issues including the cost of conversion and production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) and the production of metadata, among other things.

Specifically, noting that “courts will rarely shift costs to the requesting party and this is not one of those exceptional circumstances,” the court declined to shift the cost of defendants’ production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) but held that defendants would not have to pay to change the format of their responsive documents and that plaintiffs would bear the cost for such modification, if desired.  In support of its holding, the court reasoned:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 1649592 (E.D. Wis. June 10, 2009)

Following the court’s award of partial summary judgment to defendant, the sole cause of action remaining was plaintiff’s claim for breach of an oral agreement.  In support of that claim, plaintiff sought to compel the production of five DVDs containing the results of defendant’s search for potentially responsive electronically stored information ("ESI") referencing plaintiff, including emails.  Because of the broad nature of defendant’s search, the DVDs contained some information that was privileged or otherwise non-discoverable.  Defendant opposed the request as overly broad and unduly burdensome “given the narrow issues remaining in the case.”  Moreover, defendant had previously produced responsive ESI, including ESI contained on the DVDs.  The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel.  Having denied the motion, the court nonetheless recognized defendant’s obligation to “conduct reasonable searches” to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests and ordered defendant to conduct additional searching of the ESI at issue as instructed by the court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

In this case arising from plaintiff’s claims of a foul odor in his new car and defendant’s failure to repair it, plaintiff repeatedly sought terminating sanctions from the trial court for defendant’s repeated and egregious discovery abuses.  Instead, the trial court ordered the jury would be instructed regarding defendant’s discovery failures and allowed to draw an adverse inference. Even when presented with additional evidence of defendant’s failures during trial, the trial court refused to award terminating sanctions.  On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to impose terminating sanctions and remanded the case with instructions to strike defendant’s answer and enter default judgment, among other things.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates, 981 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 2009)

In this case, arising from plaintiffs’ claims that defendants interfered with business relationships and misappropriated trade secrets, plaintiffs sought sanctions against defendants for the destruction of information on a laptop computer which belonged to defendant Michael Kates, a former employee of plaintiffs.  The court refused to award default judgment, as requested, but ordered an adverse inference against Kates and ordered monetary sanctions against Kates and defendants Advanced Synthesis Group (“ASG”) and ASDI, Inc. (“ASDI”) resulting from Kates’s destruction of a relevant hard drive and ASG’s and ASDI’s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent that destruction.

Dr. Michael Kates was employed by plaintiffs between 1997 and February 2004.  In mid-2003, while still employed by plaintiffs, Kates purchased a Gateway laptop for business purposes.  Between 2003 and early 2004, Kates’s relationship with plaintiffs deteriorated.  In December 2003, Kates resigned from plaintiff C&B Research & Development, Inc. (“CB”) and on February 13, 2004, Kates also resigned from plaintiff Beard Research, Inc. (“BR”).  Kates began working at ASG three days later and eventually went to work for ASDI; he continued to use the Gateway laptop.  ASDI provided management services for ASG and both plaintiffs and defendants were involved in the sale of chemical compounds through a catalog, among other things.  On May 4, 2005, CB and BR filed suit against Kates, ASDI, ASG and others.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2009 WL 1473708 (N.D. Ga. May 27, 2009)

In this constructive transfer and fraud case arising out of the 2003 bankruptcy of Magnatrax Corporation, plaintiff alleged numerous discovery abuses on the part of defendants and sought sanctions accordingly.  Among the abuses described were several allegations related to defendants’ failure to produce information stored on backup tapes, even upon being ordered to do so, and other various and related misdeeds.  Calling defendants actions a “textbook case of discovery abuse,” the court found in favor of plaintiff but declined to strike defendants’ answer, as requested, and ordered defendants to pay plaintiff $1,022,700 in monetary sanctions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2009 WL 1456573 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009)

In this case, defendant Arab Bank moved to compel production of documents, pursuant to subpoena, by non-parties Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. (“IDB”), its indirect, wholly –owned subsidiary, Israel Discount Bank of New York (“IDBNY”), and Bank Hapoalim (“Hapoalim”).  Arab Bank served its first subpoena on IDBNY seeking, among other things, the production of IDB documents located in Israel.  Arab Bank also served a second subpoena on IDBNY seeking “the production of identical information from its parent, IDB.”  Hapoalim was also served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents located in Israel.  IDBNY generally complied with the first subpoena but objected to the production of IDB documents located in Israel.  As to the second subpoena, IDBNY accepted service on behalf of itself, but not IDB, and IDB resisted the production of the documents sought based on the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction.  Hapoalim also resisted production arguing that much of the information sought was protected from discovery by Israeli law.  The court denied Arab Bank’s motion as to IDB documents located in Israel upon finding that IDBNY lacked sufficient control of such documents and because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over IDB.  The court also denied Arab Bank’s motion as to those documents protected by Israeli law, but indicated its willingness to require production of the other documents requested.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418 (D.N.J. 2009)

In this case, arising from allegations surrounding contaminated concrete following the demolition of a Ford plant in New Jersey, defendant Edgewood Properties (“Edgewood”) brought several motions before the court, including a motion to compel production of documents in their native format (or documents containing metadata) and a motion for an order granting Edgewood the right to confirm the adequacy of Ford’s manual collection process by searching the electronic systems of certain custodians.  Finding Edgewood had waived its objection to the format of Ford’s production by failing to object within a reasonable time period, the court denied Edgewood’s motion to compel.  The court also denied Edgewood’s motion to allow access to certain of Ford’s electronically-stored records citing inter alia the burden to Ford and Edgewood’s failure to make a showing of Ford’s purposeful or negligent withholding of documents.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Council of the City of New Orleans v. Washington, 2009 WL 1300747 (La. Ct. App. May 12, 2009)

In this case, Relator Tracie Washington, a Louisiana attorney, and others, appealed the trial court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevented them from publishing or disseminating documents received in response to a public records request and required that all documents be returned, among other restrictions.  The request at issue sought email records from a number of City Council members from 2006 to the present.  The documents produced were not reviewed for privilege prior to production.  Accordingly, the City Council sought and received a preliminary injunction to prevent their dissemination and require their return.  Relators appealed and the trial court was reversed upon the appellate court’s finding that the trial court’s injunction violated the Relators’ First Amendment rights.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bank of Mongolia v. M & P Global Fin. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1117312 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2009)

In this case arising from allegations that defendants conspired to defraud plaintiff of $23 million, defendants failed to properly and timely respond to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and failed to offer adequate justifications or explanations for such behavior.  Additionally, despite initial representations that certain documents had been produced or were not in their possession, at hearing it became clear that such representations were not true.  For example, despite claiming that all responsive documents had been produced, defense counsel admitted at hearing that defendants had not performed a search of all deleted and unsaved electronic documents.  For defendants’ discovery failures, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered an independent forensic expert be allowed access to defendants’ computer systems to search for “deleted responsive files.”  The court also granted plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)

In ongoing litigation over sales commissions, Plaintiff Technical Sales Associates, Inc. ("TSA") claims that Defendant Ohio Star Forge Comapny ("OSF") breached two separate sales representative agreements.  After a protracted discovery dispute, TSA and OSF agreed to a forensic examination of OSF's computers to search for a particular e-mail.  The forensic examination was performed by a company hired by TSA called Midwest Data Group LLC ("Midwest").  During the forensic examination, Midwest found evidence that certain files had been deleted by OSF. Midwest's reporting of its findings to TSA became the subject of cross-motions for sanctions which were ruled upon by the court on March 19, 2009.  (See summary of March 19, 2009 opinion available here.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Oz Optics, Ltd. v. Hakimoglu, 2009 WL 1017042 (Cal. App. Apr. 15, 2009) (Unpublished)

In this case arising from defendant/appellant Hakimoglu’s breach of her employment contract, the trial court awarded $90,000 in monetary sanctions upon finding that Hakimoglu violated a court order to produce her laptop and spoliated evidence by using wiping software to delete potentially relevant data.  Upon appeal of this issue, among others, the appellate court affirmed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Forest Labs., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2009)

In this case, defendants filed a motion seeking a hearing to address plaintiffs’ suspected spoliation of evidence, for an order forbidding plaintiffs from asserting that their drug, escitalopram, did produce unexpected results, and for plaintiffs to pay attorney fees.  Defendants’ motion alleged plaintiffs had destroyed or rendered unsearchable “key electronic records” tending to show that the drug did not produce unexpected results.  Plaintiffs denied the allegation arguing they had preserved all emails on their active file server and had continued their standard operating procedures in good faith.  Finding that inaccessible information stored on plaintiffs’ disaster recovery back up tapes had been destroyed after the duty to preserve arose, the court held that a hearing was necessary to determine whether that information was subject to an exception that would have required the tapes to be preserved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2009 WL 982460 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2009)

Following defendant’s discovery of thousands of relevant documents two months after the close of discovery and one month before trial, defendant ordered its employees to print the information and then to delete that information from their computers.  Defendant argued the information was deleted in furtherance of its obligations under a Confidentiality Agreement requiring the destruction of the information discovered and that printing the information fulfilled its preservation obligations related to litigation.  Finding that sanctions were warranted, the court ordered additional discovery into issues revealed by the newly discovered evidence at defendant's expense and for defendant to allow plaintiffs to conduct a forensic examination of defendant's backup system to verify its maintenance of deleted emails and to verify that all relevant emails were produced despite defendant’s directive to its employees to print and delete.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009)

In this patent infringement case, plaintiff, Phillip M. Adams & Associates (“Adams”), alleged that defendants ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively “ASUS”) spoliated relevant evidence and should therefore be sanctioned.  Finding that ASUS violated its duty to preserve and that the loss of evidence could not be excused as a “routine, good faith operation of electronic information systems,” the court ruled that sanctions were appropriate, but reserved imposition pending the close of discovery and a determination of prejudice.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

State v. Rivas, 121 Ohio St. 3d 469, 905 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio 2009)

In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio was asked to address the question of whether “in a case in which a prosecutor has complied with its duty to provide discovery by delivering a transcript of evidence from the hard drive of a police computer, the accused has the right to obtain a mirror image of the computer hard drive without making a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript is false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated.”  The court concluded that without making such a showing, a defendant has no right to obtain a copy of the hard drive.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

U.S. v. Maxxam, Inc., 2009 WL 817264 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2009)

In this case, which arose from the joint purchase of the Headwaters Forest by the United States Government and the State of California, plaintiffs moved for sanctions due to the alleged spoliation of “critical” evidence by defendants Maxxam and Hurwitz.  Despite finding that “certain evidence was not preserved,” the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that the destruction was intentional and where, at the time of the destruction, there was no duty to preserve.

In the 1990’s, the U.S. Government and the State of California agreed to purchase the Headwaters Forest from Pacific Lumber, which had recently been taken over by defendant Maxxam, Inc., a company controlled by defendant Hurwitz.  As a condition of purchase, Pacific Lumber agreed to develop and implement a sustained yield plan (“SYP”) for its retained properties, subject to approval.  An SYP was prepared by Pacific Lumber’s consulting company, VESTRA, using computer modeling and was eventually approved.  Later, plaintiffs determined that the SYP was fraudulent in many respects and a lawsuit was filed in December 2006.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Heriot v. Byrne, 2009 WL 742769 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2009)

In this declaratory judgment action, the parties sought to settle the issue of copyright ownership over a made-for-television movie called The Secret.  In the course of discovery, due to a mistake by their “document vendor,” plaintiffs inadvertently produced privileged information.  Upon discovery of the inadvertent production, plaintiffs immediately sought to claw back the privileged material.  Defendants resisted, arguing that privilege was waived.  Undertaking an extensive analysis of recently passed FRE 502 and the previously existing tests to determine waiver, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and ordered any remaining copies of plaintiffs’ privileged documents in defendants’ possession returned or destroyed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

White v. Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2009 WL 722056 (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2009)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff discovered discrepancies between certain relevant emails’ sent dates and the creation dates of their attachments. These discrepancies, plaintiff contended, were relevant to the issue of when the decision to terminate her employment was made. Without additional information, however, plaintiff’s forensic expert could not come to a conclusion regarding the meaning of the discrepancies. Accordingly, plaintiff sought the re-production of the emails, in native format, and their attachments from the Outlook accounts of both the sender and the recipient of each email. Plaintiff also sought the production of the relevant PST and OST files and access to the hard drives used to create any of the emails’ attachments. Plaintiff’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Anthropologie, Inc. v. Forever 21, Inc., 2009 WL 690239 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2009)

In this copyright infringement case, defendants refused to properly respond to discovery and instead provided summaries of the requested information designated “for settlement purposes only.”  Finding these responses inadequate, and noting defendants numerous misrepresentations to the court, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of the data underlying the proffered summaries and for all information responsive to plaintiff’s requests.  However, despite finding inspection of defendants’ hard drives justified, the court declined to order such access where plaintiff had failed to provide any specifics of its proposal and where the court sought to avoid additional delay and expense.  Accordingly, upon receipt of defendants’ ordered production, if it still wished, plaintiff was authorized to submit a proposed inspection process and further explanation of its need for access for consideration by the court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

William A. Gross. Constr. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 256 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

This case arose from disputes over alleged defects and delay in the construction of the Bronx County Hall of Justice.  In the course of litigation, The Dormitory Authority of New York (“DASNY”) agreed to produce the relevant documents of the non-party construction manager, Hill International (“Hill”).  Disagreement arose amongst the parties, however, regarding appropriate search terms to segregate project related emails from Hill’s unrelated emails.  Hill, despite being in the best position to contribute, suggested no potential search terms and the court was forced into the “uncomfortable position” of crafting a search without adequate information.

Having been put in such a position, the court took its opportunity to write a brief opinion addressing the need for care and collaboration in crafting search terms in light of its assessment that “the message has not gotten through.”  First, the court presented an excerpt from an opinion of Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm, regarding the proper selection and implementation of terms:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., Nos. 07-11745, 08-13365 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009)

In this case arising from a dispute over sales commissions, the court denied Defendant Ohio Star Forge Company’s (“OSF’s”) motions for contempt and sanctions and granted plaintiff, Technical Sales Associates, Inc.’s (“TSA”), motion for sanctions for destruction of electronic evidence.  The court concluded that OSF deleted approximately 70,000 files and moved several email folders to the recycling bin despite a duty to preserve relevant evidence.

In July 2007, TSA sought the production of all emails between certain specified persons for the purpose of obtaining a particular email alleged by TSA to exist on OSF’s information system and, specifically, in the e-mailbox of OSF employee Patrick Billups.  Notwithstanding numerous targeted requests for the e-mail, OSF did not produce it.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ACORN v. County of Nassau, 2009 WL 605859 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

In this case, plaintiffs moved for an adverse inference instruction alleging that Nassau County failed to timely implement a litigation hold which resulted in the destruction of potentially relevant documents and that it failed to adequately search for potentially responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”).  Finding that plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate that any lost materials would have been favorable to them, the court denied the motion.  However, upon the court’s finding that the County’s failure to implement a timely litigation hold amounted to gross negligence, the court awarded plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees.  Regarding the County’s failure to search for relevant ESI, the court declined to award sanctions in light of the County’s assertions that manual searches were undertaken, but ordered the County to confirm that their responses were complete.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

State v. Dingman, 202 P.3d 388 (Wash. App. 2009)

On appeal from his conviction for first degree theft and money laundering, Dingman argued that the trial court erred when it denied his repeated discovery requests for meaningful access to the hard drives seized from his house.  The appellate court agreed, and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

On March 19, 2003, officers searched Dingman’s house and seized nine computers.  A detective then created mirror image copies of those computers using a program called EnCase.  Eventually, Dingman was charged with numerous counts of first degree theft and money laundering.

On January 1, 2004 the State provided Dingman with discovery, including a report containing information about the mirror images copies of his computers taken with EnCase.  In August of 2005, Dingman moved for additional discovery, requesting direct access to the computer hard drives or mirror image copies “created in a program used by the defendant’s computer expert.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 546429 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2009)

This case arises from an insurance dispute following damage to Bray & Gillespie’s (“B&G”) resort properties from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne.  B&G was represented by Anderson, Kill & Olick, P.C. (“AKO”) in connection with the submission of insurance claims for the damage.  B&G, with the assistance of AKO, gathered documents, including electronically stored information (“ESI”) to support those claims.  Relevant ESI was downloaded in its native format, scanned, and loaded to a hard drive (“Target Hard Drive”).  The ESI was then converted to TIFF images using a program called Extractiva, which also captured the metadata from the ESI.  Those images and metadata were then uploaded into the Introspect database and the Target Hard Drive was put in storage.  AKO provided copies of the information to Lexington, in paper form and on discs, in support of B&G’s insurance claims.  Coverage could not be agreed upon, and on February 13, 2007, B&G filed suit.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Smith v. Slifer Smith & Frampton/Vail Assocs. Real Estate, LLC, 2009 WL 482603 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2009)

Plaintiffs, as representatives of an estate, retained defendants, including broker Peter Seibert, to assist in selling a piece of the estate’s property.  The property eventually sold, on defendants’ recommendation, for approximately $2.8 million.  83 days later, defendants assisted in reselling the property to a development company for $7.2 million.  On March 19, 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel contacted defendants and informed them he was conducting an investigation into the sale.  On November 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed suit alleging inter alia breach of statutory duties, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

Plaintiffs served discovery requests on April 9 and July 30, 2007.  Included, were specific requests for electronically stored information (“ESI”) and for inspection and sampling of certain of defendants’ computers.  Defendants’ responses indicated that they had searched three primary sources of potentially responsive ESI: Seibert’s old office computer, his home computer, and his laptop.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Indep. Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 WL 484956 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009)

Finding plaintiff/appellee failed to show a valid cause of action for defamation, the appellate court vacated an order requiring appellant to identify the alleged anonymous defamers and remanded the case for entry of an order granting appellant’s motion to quash.

In this defamation case, plaintiff/appellee Brodie sought to enforce a subpoena to compel the production of the identities of several persons who posted allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff, anonymously, on defendant/appellant Independent Newspaper’s (“Independent”) Internet forum.  The circuit court granted Brodie’s motion and ordered Independent to identify the anonymous forum participants.  Independent appealed.  Finding that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Independent’s motion for a protective order because “Brodie had not pleaded a valid defamation claim against any of [the anonymous forum participants],” the appellate court vacated the prior judgment and remanded the case with instructions to grant defendant’s motion for a protective order and quash the subpoena. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ak-Chin Indian Cmty. v. U.S., 85. Fed. Cl. 397 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 14, 2009)

Ak-Chin Indian Cmty. v. U.S., 2009 WL 320333 (Fed. Cl. Feb 5, 2009) (Denying Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration but amending prior order in 85 Fed. Cl. 397 to delete certain findings of fact).

In this case, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to organize and label its responses to plaintiff’s requests for production according to category, and to identify the specific documents from which responses to interrogatories could be derived.

Defendant responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests by making the requested information available for inspection.  The information could allegedly be located by querying a database containing data about the contents of each box stored at a particular location.  Plaintiff objected to defendant’s response and requested the information be organized and labeled according to the categories of its requests.  Finding that the documents offered for inspection were not maintained “in the usual course of business” and thus defendant’s response did not comply with RCFC 34, the court ordered defendant to organize and label the documents as requested by plaintiff.  The court also held that defendant had not met the requirements to properly rely upon RCFC 33(d) in responding to interrogatories where the rule allowed the production of business records as a response only where the burden of ascertaining the answer would be substantially the same for either party.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Proctor & Gamble Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2009 WL 440543 (E.D. Tex. Feb 19, 2009)

In this case, following the court’s decision that all documents were to be produced electronically in TIFF format with Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”), defendant asserted that the cost of processing the documents should be shifted to the plaintiff.  In support of its assertion, defendant claimed that the cost of conversion to OCR would likely exceed $200,000 and that “it does not itself seek to use the OCR process, and any extra expense would be incurred on it behalf solely for Plaintiff’s convenience.”  Defendant offered no evidence in support of its estimate, however, and the court’s own research indicated the estimated cost appeared to be “somewhat inflated.”  Nor did defendant deny that the OCR process would make the documents easier to examine, thus reducing costs for attorney time.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 2009 WL 393644 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2009)

In this case, the court was asked to reconsider its prior order compelling defendants to return privileged documents inadvertently produced by the plaintiff.  The court declined to overturn its ruling regarding documents specifically identified by the plaintiff as inadvertently produced and addressed by the court’s prior order.  However, as to documents not identified at the time of the order, the court declared any privilege waived.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Kvitka v. Puffin Co., LLC, 2009 WL 385582 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009)

Finding plaintiff intentionally discarded her laptop despite a duty to preserve it, the court ordered dismissal of her claims and an adverse inference instruction as to defendants’ cross-claims.

After years of advertising in defendants’ magazine, plaintiff Kvitka, an antique doll dealer, received notice that defendants were terminating her right to advertise because of complaints about her business practices, including that she disparaged other advertisers and dealers. In the parties’ subsequent discussions, defendants revealed their possession of a file containing several complaints about Kvitka as well as 15 pages of emails, written by her, in which she disparaged other advertisers.

Unable to resolve the conflict out of court, Kvitka filed suit.  In the course of discovery, it was revealed that despite Kvitka’s counsel’s receipt of correspondence from defendants specifically requesting preservation of Kvitka’s computer and emails, Kvitka had nonetheless discarded her laptop.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mintel Int’l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2009 WL 249227 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009)

In this case, the plaintiff, Mintel International Group Limited (“Mintel”), alleged that defendant Neerghen violated the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and various terms of his employment contract when he emailed confidential Mintel documents to his personal account and subsequently accepted employment with Mintel’s competitor, Datamonitor. Throughout the course of litigation, five motions to compel were filed seeking a mirror image of third-party Datamonitor’s computers.  All of those motions were denied.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Classicstar Mare Lease Litig., 2009 WL 260954 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2009)

In this case, despite prior production in accordance with the Federal Rules, the court enforced a promise to produce in native format but ordered the requesting party to bear the costs.

This matter came before the court on the motion of GeoStar Corporation for relief from the court’s order requiring it to produce financial information in its native format.  Plaintiffs originally requested financial information from GeoStar “as they are kept in the usual course of business” or organized and labeled in a manner proscribed.  GeoStar objected, but the court ultimately entered orders requiring production.  The orders did not specify the format of production.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SEC v. Badian, 2009 WL 222783 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 26, 2009)

In this case, Rhino Investors, Inc. (“Rhino”), a non-party, sought to claw back approximately 260 documents that it claimed were inadvertently produced in 2003 in the midst of an SEC investigation.  The court, applying the four factors set forth in Louis Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 104 F.R.D. 103, 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) and its progeny, concluded that Rhino had waived any privilege it may have asserted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com Inc., 2009 WL 185992 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)

Upon finding that defendants acted in bad faith to deliberately destroy relevant evidence despite a duty to preserve, the court imposed severe sanctions.

Defendant Usenet.com, operated by defendant Gerald Reynolds, is a commercial Usenet provider.  Usenet is a “network of loosely connected computer servers that share message traffic for discussions.”  Users are able to upload content to the system and download content from other users’ postings. Postings to Usenet are known as “articles.”  “Articles” are organized into “newsgroups” – including Music Groups.  In this case, “Plaintiffs contend that Defendants provided their subscribers access to hundreds of music piracy newsgroups containing vast amounts of infringing digital music files copyrighted by Plaintiffs.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 2009 WL 94311 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2009)

In this case, arising from claims of securities fraud, the court addressed questions concerning the government’s discovery obligations in civil discovery.  Throughout discovery in the case, several disputes arose regarding the SEC’s production of documents and its failure to perform sufficiently thorough searches for the requested information.  Following extensive analysis of the individual issues, the court ultimately concluded that “[w]hen a government agency initiates litigation, it must be prepared to follow the same discovery rules that govern private parties…”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 207 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009)

In this case, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a superior court ruling denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of metadata associated with documents previously produced pursuant to Arizona’s Public Records Law.

In late 2006, after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint against the city, plaintiff submitted a series of public records requests.  The city’s subsequent production contained hard copy versions of electronic documents responsive to his request for all notes “documenting supervisory performance” within the relevant time frame.  Plaintiff suspected the notes had been backdated and requested production of the metadata associated with each document.  The city refused arguing that the requested metadata was “not maintained by the city and was not available,” and that metadata was not a public record.  In response, plaintiff brought a special action before the district court. Finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, the superior court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel.  Plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the superior court’s ruling denying the production of metadata.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

In this case, the district court held defendants had sole authority to dictates search terms, per stipulated order, and sanctioned a third-party for failure to timely produce documents, despite significant efforts to comply with the deadline.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Individual defendants served a third-party subpoena on The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”), requesting production of over 30 categories of documents.  The court denied OFHEO’s subsequent motion to quash, and entered an order directing compliance.

The defendants then agreed to limit the requests for electronically stored information to emails stored on OFHEO’s network and backup tapes.  After the court granted several requests for an extension of time to comply, OFHEO finally produced what it represented were “all” relevant materials.  However, defendants later discovered that OFHEO failed to search all of its off-site disaster-recovery backup tapes.

Despite OFHEO’s voluntary agreement to conduct a search of these tapes, defendants moved to hold OFHEO in contempt.  Following a day of hearings on the issue, the parties entered into a stipulated order holding the contempt motions in abeyance and requiring OFHEO to conduct searches of its disaster-recovery back-up tapes and to produce those documents, as well as a privilege log, by a date certain.  Thereafter, a dispute arose requiring the court’s clarification that the stipulated order gave sole discretion to specify search terms to the defendants.  Despite OFHEO’s attempts to comply with the order, it indicated its inability to timely produce the required privilege logs.  Accordingly, defendants renewed their contempt motion.  The motion was granted and, as a sanction, OFHEO was ordered to produce a category of privileged material to defendants’ counsel for review, with the specific instruction that such production would not waive privilege.  OFHEO appealed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 255 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009)

In this case arising from Micron’s alleged infringement of Rambus’ patents, a bench trial was held on the issue of Rambus’ alleged spoliation of relevant documents pursuant to a document retention policy it had recently implemented.  The court ruled that Rambus had intentionally spoliated documents in bad faith.  As a sanction, the court declared the patents in suit unenforceable against Micron.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Covad Comm. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 147 (D.D.C. 2008)

In this case arising from claims of misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information, plaintiff filed a motion to compel following a disagreement regarding the proper format of production of electronically stored information.  The defendant argued that because the plaintiff failed to specify a format of production, hard copy or .TIFF images were appropriate.  The plaintiff insisted on production in native format.  The court, indicating its displeasure with both parties, ordered production of the documents in their native format, but ordered the parties to split the cost of the necessary privilege review.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., 2008 WL 5210346 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2008)

On the eve of trial in this case in which plaintiffs alleged trade secret theft, the court granted an extension “on urgent party request” so that additional discovery could be accomplished.  The discovery proved to be complex, and the court appointed a special master to manage the electronic discovery issues.  Thereafter, the parties negotiated a stipulation, approved by the court, which included a clawback procedure (“the Clawback Agreement”) to handle the return of privileged documents.  The Clawback Agreement provided that in the event of disclosure of a privileged document, the document was to be returned upon written demand.  If the recipient of the document wished to challenge the privilege claim, they were required to do so in writing, within five days of receipt of the demand for the document’s return.  The special master would then resolve the dispute following an in camera review.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sitterson v. Evergreen School Dist., 2008 WL 4981630 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, a school district (“the District”), for breach of contract and quantum meruit following termination of his contract as a financial advisor.  About one month after filing suit, plaintiff served his requests for production.  In response, the District produced approximately 439 pages of documents, including four confidential letters between the District and its attorney regarding the litigation.  Three years later and ten days before trial, plaintiff sent copies of his proposed exhibits to the District, including the four confidential letters.  The District objected to their admission on the first day of trial, arguing that they were protected by attorney-client privilege.  In response to a question from the trial court regarding his role in the production of the letters, the attorney for the District responded that the letters did “go through” him and he stated, “…I guess I just wasn’t thorough enough.”  The trial court denied the District’s motion to exclude. Eventually, the jury awarded plaintiff $151,000.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2008 WL 4997932 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008)

In this case involving breach of contract and other claims, the court ordered the defendant to return inadvertently produced, privileged, electronically stored information (“ESI”) to the plaintiffs, and ordered the parties to secure all relevant ESI in their possession and file a written outline of the secured data (“data log”) with opposing counsel and the court.  Upon receipt of plaintiffs’ data log, defendant filed a motion to compel the production of all of the data outlined therein, to compel an explanation regarding allegedly spoliated, missing, or altered documents, for an order that all privilege as to the inadvertently produced documents had been waived as a result of plaintiffs’ “misconduct”, and for a finding that plaintiffs were in violation of the civil rules and a prior order of the court, among other things.  Some of these issues were referred to the magistrate judge for hearing and determination with all other issues reserved for a future hearing.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2008 WL 5062700 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008)

In this class action case alleging unlawful searches and seizures of plaintiffs’ homes, a discovery dispute arose regarding the production of metadata.  The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request for the production of metadata for several types of electronically stored information (“ESI”) including email, word and excel documents, and databases.

On January 18, 2008, the parties agreed to undertake some discovery despite defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.  About that time, defendants began to collect relevant materials from its employees.  Plaintiffs served their first requests for production on February 15, 2008 but failed to address the form of production or metadata.  The issue was first mentioned by plaintiffs on March 18, 2008 but only “in passing.”  By this time, defendants had completed most of their collection efforts.  On March 22, 2008 plaintiffs requested the production of emails and other ESI in Tagged Imaged File Format (“TIFF”) with corresponding load files containing metadata fields and extracted text and that spreadsheets and databases be produced in native format.  The parties conferred on July 1, 2008 to discuss the format of production of ICE’s hierarchical databases.  On July 14, 2008, defendants objected to the production of ESI in the forms requested by plaintiffs on the grounds of relevance and burden, and proposed production in the form of searchable PDF instead.  Defendants also stated they would provide metadata for a particular document only where plaintiffs could demonstrate its relevance to their claims.  Despite several attempts, the parties were unable to reach agreement.  Thus, it fell to the court to address plaintiffs’ requests.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 216 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff Rhoads Industries, inadvertently produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents.  Defendants filed a motion to deem the claim of privilege waived arguing that plaintiff’s production was careless, that its response in seeking the return of the documents was delayed, and that it failed to produce complete and accurate privilege logs as to those documents.

In February 2007, Rhoads began preparing for its anticipated litigation against Building Materials Corporation of America.  Realizing the likelihood of extensive electronic discovery, Rhoads directed its IT consultant to research software to assist with the electronic discovery effort.  The IT consultant eventually purchased Discovery Attender (or “Sherpa”) to perform the necessary electronic data searches.  Shortly thereafter, the IT consultant and his team began work to identify locations of potentially relevant information.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Barnett v. Simmons, 197 P.3d 12, 2008 OK 100 (2008)

In this case, plaintiff Barnett sued defendant Rock Oil Company seeking unpaid oil royalties allegedly owed to him.  Discovery in the case established that plaintiff maintained files on his computer related to his claims against Rock Oil. Accordingly, Rock Oil sought production of plaintiff’s hard drive.  Plaintiff objected, but the parties attempted to reach agreement as to how to accomplish production.  No agreement was reached.  Rock Oil filed a motion to compel and the court granted the motion.  Although the parties were then able to agree on a neutral examiner, the plaintiff dismissed his claims prior to the examination, but expressed his intent to re-file within three months.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 4858685 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2008)

At trial in this case, Broadcom made an oral motion for sanctions related to Qualcomm’s failure to disclose documents corroborating its participation in the Joint Video Team (“JVT”), a standards body related to video coding specifications.  Qualcomm’s claimed lack of participation in the JVT was a core element of its claims for patent infringement against Broadcom.  Judge Brewster referred the discovery aspects of that motion to Magistrate Judge Major and then issued an Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver based on his determination that Qualcomm’s attorneys had participated in a sequence of discovery misconduct throughout the litigation process.  However, because those attorneys had not had an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued impugning their behavior and in order to afford them an opportunity to be heard on the potential imposition of attorney sanctions, the court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should not be Imposed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2008 WL 4758678 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2008)

In this securities case, the parties reached agreement that discovery was best accomplished by allowing Abercrombie to perform keyword searches to identify relevant information for production.  Plaintiff identified and provided the key words to the defendant.

The first key words list contained 120 terms.  After efforts to ensure the search would be productive, including converting certain files to a different format, Abercrombie ran the search. There were many hits.  To reduce the volume, plaintiffs crafted a revised list of 123 terms.  Another search was run and when the results came in, the parties agreed that some data sets from among the results would be reviewed and produced.  Abercrombie produced those documents.  The parties also agreed that further refinements of the search would be necessary to cut down the remaining results.  Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel sent 6 additional terms to Abercrombie to be run in proximity to other specified terms. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

D'Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 129 (D.D.C. Oct. 2008)

In this gender discrimination case, the court held an evidentiary hearing to address plaintiff’s concerns regarding outstanding discovery.  Plaintiff claimed that defendants had destroyed her former computer, which contained potentially relevant information, and had not produced all of the electronic information she requested.  At the hearing, a representative of the defendants explained that plaintiff’s computer was “scrapped after he decided that it could not be used and also searched for items requested by plaintiff.”  A representative also testified regarding additional searches performed to respond to plaintiff’s requests and explained the “Legato system,” a server which held a back up of plaintiff’s mailbox from 2004, made under order of the Justice Department in a separate matter.  Defendants agreed to allow plaintiff’s expert to perform an in-person search of their servers, but the parties were unable to agree upon a protocol to guide that search.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gutman v. Klein, 2008 WL 4682208 (E.D.N.Y. Oct 15, 2008)

In this case arising from accusations of fraud, among other things, plaintiffs moved for spoliation sanctions against the defendants to include default judgment, reimbursement of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of the discovery dispute, and punitive monetary sanctions.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged egregious spoliation of defendant Klein’s laptop.  Suspicion of spoliation initially arose when Klein resisted the court’s order to allow his laptop and other computers to be copied, and was later exacerbated because when the laptop was finally produced it was “hot to the touch and a screw was missing from its hard drive enclosure.”  In light of these facts, the court appointed a forensic expert to examine the evidence for spoliation and provide a detailed report.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank, 2008 WL 4722336 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2008)

In this breach of contract case, Emigrant filed several motions to compel Metavante’s response to multiple discovery requests.  One motion sought the production of source code from the product delivered to Emigrant under the parties’ technology outsourcing agreement.  Under the agreement, Metavante was to provide Emigrant with an online direct banking product called EmigrantDirect.

Emigrant argued that access to the source code may provide information about the quality of the product and was therefore relevant and properly discoverable.  Metavante argued that its production would be unduly burdensome because it would cost over $300,000 and take over 5,000 hours to produce.  Metavante also argued that the code would provide little relevant information.  Emigrant responded arguing that Metavante’s estimates assumed a need to sort and compile all of the information before disclosing it and suggested it could mitigate the cost to Metavante by providing the code to outside consultants for inspection and a determination regarding relevance.  The court found that the source code was relevant and, citing Emigrant’s offer to use outside consultants, found that “[i]n balancing the value of the source code against the burden of producing it…the potential value outweighs the burden.”  The court also noted that any confidentiality concerns were addressed by its previously issued protective order.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Allcare Dental Mgmt., LLC v. Zrinyi, DDS, 2008 WL 4649131 (D. Idaho Oct. 20, 2008)

In this defamation case, plaintiffs sought an order allowing expedited discovery.  Specifically, plaintiffs sought permission to serve a subpoena duces tecum upon Cable One, Inc., an Internet service provider and non-party to the action, for information related to the claims in the case and the potential identification of Doe Defendants.  Plaintiffs also sought an order allowing them to take images of the hard drives of any computer owned or used by the named defendants for the preservation of electronically stored information related to the claims in the case and the potential identification of Doe Defendants.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Containment Tech. Group, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Health Sys. Pharmacists, 2008 WL 4545310 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008)

In this defamation case, the parties disagreed over the scope of a protective order sought by plaintiff prior to production of proprietary information, among other things.  The parties attempted to negotiate the terms of such an order, but could not agree on several issues, including whether only portions of documents should be designated as “confidential” if the entire document did not rise to that level.  Under the parties’ proposed terms, materials designated “confidential” would have automatically been sealed if filed with the court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008)

In this employment case, plaintiffs filed several motions to compel supplemental responses to their extensive discovery requests after defendants allegedly failed to adequately respond.  The case was eventually referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm for the purpose of resolving all of the discovery disputes.

In the initial review of defendants’ objections to the requests, the court noted “an obvious violation” of Federal Rule 33(b)(4) and “facially apparent violations” of Federal Rule 33(b)(2) which require that objections to interrogatories and requests for production be laid out with specificity or else they are waived.  Moreover, the court suggested that the defendants’ failure to be particular in their objections “suggested a probable violation” of Federal Rule 26(g)(1) which requires a reasonable inquiry prior to objecting to an interrogatory or document request.  Accordingly, the court scheduled a hearing to address the issues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Almarri v. Gates, 2008 WL 4449858 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2008)

In this case challenging conditions of his confinement, plaintiff sought an order directing the government to preserve evidence and an inquiry into the government’s destruction and other spoliation of evidence.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the government had destroyed relevant materials related to his detention, including recordings, and that the government had no uniform policy for preserving detainee interrogation recordings.   Therefore, a preservation order was necessary to prevent further spoliation.  The government maintained that such an order was unwarranted in light of the multiple preservation directives issued to ensure that evidence related to the plaintiff was preserved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Arteria Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O., Inc., 2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008) (Not for Publication)

In this case arising from failed negotiations for a long term development loan, the plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation sanctions and sought an adverse inference in its favor.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged spoliation of the contents of the defendants’ website as it existed at the time the dispute between the parties arose, and of a particular letter from the Bank of New York.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re NVMS, LLC, 2008 WL 4488963 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2008)

In this case, the debtor, a medical services company, moved for expedited discovery of information contained in the database of a former billing partner.  In July of 2000, the debtor contracted with MBP to handle the debtor’s billing.  In February 2008, the debtor stopped doing business with MBP and started using Practice Resources Network, Inc. (PRN).  After switching, the debtor requested that MBP provide the debtor with a copy of its billing data so the debtor could determine the status of its claims. MBP refused.  Soon after filing for bankruptcy in March 2008, the debtor filed an expedited motion seeking copies of this data from MBP.  MBP objected and filed a motion for a protective order.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hoover v. Fla. Hydro, Inc., 2008 WL 4467661 (E.D. La. 2008)

In this breach of contract case, Hoover moved to quash subpoenas issued by defendant to two non-parties:  Hoover’s mother and Hoover’s former roommate. The subpoena issued to Hoover’s mother requested inspection of her laptop or any electronic storage device “for documents copied, sent to, or received by her son” related to several entities, including the defendant.  The subpoena issued to the former roommate, Sanghani, also sought inspection of his laptop computer and any other electronic storage device or computer “that has any responsive documents.”  The subpoena further requested documents, “whether in paper form or electronically submitted,” between Hoover and Sanghani that referred to specific persons or topics.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants wrongfully obtained and used confidential information from former employee, Kenneth Fuston, who went to work for the defendants.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants used the information to hire approximately 20 of plaintiffs’ employees, open new offices in eight cities, and embark upon a new line of business in competition with plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs moved to compel production of computers believed to contain information related to those claims.  The court had previously granted a motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce emails to or from any current or former employee or customer of the plaintiff found on Fuston’s home computer and documents reflecting communication with the defendant and certain former employees of the plaintiff. Defendants produced 1,936 pages of email.  Believing the production was incomplete, plaintiffs brought a second motion to compel. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., 2008 WL 4240490 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2008)

In this patent infringement case, the court addressed the issue of whether, in response to 72 separate document requests, the plaintiff's production in digital format of 405,367 pages of documents, apportioned among 202 unlabeled folders and which through application of litigation support software could be made text searchable, but was otherwise neither organized to correlate to the document demands nor in any fashion indexed or labeled to reflect how they were maintained in the ordinary course of plaintiff's business, satisfied the responding party's obligations under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Plaintiff asserted that, pursuant to FRCP 34, it had produced the documents in the manner in which they were maintained in the ordinary course of business and therefore need not indicate to which request the documents were responsive.  In support of its position, plaintiff offered only the statement of an attorney indicating that the documents had been assembled as they had been maintained.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2008 WL 4372005 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 19, 2008)

In this case, Onex presented several motions to the court, including a motion for a protective order and for relief from the need to produce all documents identified after searching several backup tapes.  The court denied in part and granted in part Onex’s motion, and ordered Onex to produce all identified documents, except for two specific categories deemed unlikely to contain relevant information.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4298331 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2008)

In this breach of contract litigation over allegedly non-conforming goods, Glasforms moved for sanctions against third-party defendant Taishan Fiberglass for the spoliation and destruction of documents.  Taishan had previously been ordered to produce a knowledgeable and fully prepared witness or witnesses to testify about ten topics not adequately addressed in the prior Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.  In addition, Taishan was ordered to search for and produce all documents responsive to Glasform’s requests for production, including relevant internal email communications. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Law Office of Douglas T. Harris, Esq. v. Philadelphia Waterfront Partners, LP, 957 A.2d 1223, 2008 Pa. Super. 222 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)

In this case involving breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, plaintiff had requested the production of certain email and documents maintained on the computers of two individual defendants.  When defendants failed to produce the requested material, plaintiff moved to compel. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel informed the court that the two computers were inoperable and that technicians were currently working on the computers.  The court pressed defense counsel for an explanation of how the computers were broken, and observed that plaintiff was entitled to the information that had been requested.  When the court asked defense counsel what order it should enter, defense counsel responded:  “We can produce the computers.”  After the court entered its order, defendants appealed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Goodbys Creek, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4279693 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2008)

In this case involving the alleged breach of a performance bond, the court considered plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions.  Among other things, plaintiff requested that defendant be ordered to re-produce, in native format, documents previously produced as TIFF images.  The court granted only that portion of the motion, and gave the defendant three options for its re-production:  (1) provide any documents previously supplied as TIFF images in their native format, (2) provide the documents in another comparably searchable format, or (3) supply plaintiff with software for searching the TIFF images.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Babaev v. Grossman, 2008 WL 4185703 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008)

In this case, plaintiffs claimed that they were fraudulently induced to invest in defendant’s catering businesses, and sought to inspect defendants’ business records.  Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to complete their inspection, and also requested sanctions.  They claimed that defendants had engaged in spoliation of evidence and willful refusal to produce documents, and also noted defendants' “belated” claim that their computer had been lost or misplaced and that many reports and records were unavailable for that reason.  Defendants argued that the “lost” computer had been kept at defendant’s prior place of work, and that when it was retrieved the files had been corrupted and could not be accessed.  Defendants asserted that the computer had been discarded prior to the lawsuit.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Metrokane, Inc. v. Built NY, Inc., 2008 WL 4185865 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2008)

In this patent infringement litigation, BNY sought sanctions on the grounds that Metrokane failed to produce a series of emails said to be highly damaging to Metrokane's case.  BNY argued that the recent discovery of the existence of these emails through production by a non-party came too late to permit BNY to pursue otherwise crucial discovery concerning these communications.  Metrokane contended that BNY failed to comply with various procedural requirements before filing the motion, and that it had not demonstrated any misconduct by Metrokane or any prejudice.  Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger rejected Metrokane’s procedural defense, and concluded that BNY sufficiently demonstrated discovery misconduct by Metrokane and resulting prejudice.  Accordingly, the court granted a variety of remedies, including an adverse inference instruction.

Discovery in the case closed in June 2007, but disputes about Metrokane’s performance let to additional motion practice, including the enforcement of a deposition subpoena to the alleged designer of the infringing handbags (Mr. Kilduff).  The court granted BNY’s motion to compel the deposition of Mr. Kilduff in October 2007, and his deposition and production of documents occurred in November 2007.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 WL 4093497 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008)

In this class action securities litigation, plaintiffs sought sanctions based on alleged evidence spoliation by defendants.  Plaintiffs moved for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, for lesser sanctions in the form of adverse inference instructions and an order precluding defendants from relying on spoliated evidence.  Plaintiffs submitted a long list of actions allegedly taken by defendants that led to the failure to preserve or the affirmative destruction of evidence relevant to this lawsuit.

District Judge Susan Illston declined to impose terminating sanctions because the actions alleged to have been taken by defendants did not “eclipse entirely the possibility of a just result.”  The court found that plaintiffs had not demonstrated the degree of prejudice necessary to warrant terminating sanctions, primarily because plaintiffs had received a large quantity of materials in discovery.  In addition, the court noted that public policy strongly favored deciding the case on its merits, and that less drastic sanctions could be imposed that would permit a decision on the merits while also ensuring that defendants did not benefit from any spoliation.

As to lesser sanctions, the court found that adverse inferences in plaintiffs' favor were warranted with regard to some categories of evidence that defendants had conceded was not produced or preserved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Thai Heng Chang, 2008 WL 4098329 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2008)

In this breach of employment agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets case, plaintiff moved to compel production of emails from defendant’s personal Yahoo! account.  Plaintiff contended that it only recently learned of the account, and that defendant should have disclosed the account in response to an earlier discovery request.  Plaintiff argued that emails from the account contained highly relevant information crucial to the issues in the case.

Although defendant claimed he could not produce the emails because they had been destroyed by Yahoo!, he offered only a copy of a generic response from Yahoo! about deactivating accounts.  The court observed that Yahoo! may have a process for obtaining emails from deactivated accounts, and declined to accept defendant’s explanation that production was “impossible,” particularly given the important evidentiary value of the emails and the “feeble offering” by defendant in support of the contention.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, 2008 WL 4080008 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2008)

In this copyright infringement litigation, seven major recording companies alleged that defendant Howell had used the KaZaA file-sharing program to download their sound recordings and distribute them to other users of the network.  Howell had previously resisted plaintiffs’ efforts to conduct a forensic examination of his computer hard drive, and the court had granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel and granted leave to take additional discovery.  With the benefit of this additional discovery, plaintiffs moved for terminating sanctions based on Howell's willful spoliation of material evidence.

Based on the evidence presented, the court found that:

•  Defendant removed the KaZaA program from his computer and deleted the contents of the shared folder shortly after receiving notice of the lawsuit

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

In an earlier decision in this case, the court denied defendants’ motion to quash subpoenas to SkyTel for the production of text messages.  The court found that plaintiff was entitled to pursue the production of certain text messages sent or received by specified officials or employees of the City (some of whom were also named as individual defendants in the suit) during specified time frames, using text messaging devices supplied by SkyTel.  The court observed that the relevance (and hence discoverability) of the text messages necessarily turned upon the content of the communications.  Thus, it was essential to establish a procedure for the review of the content of each such communication, for determining both relevance and the application of any privilege.  The court appointed two magistrate judges to review the communications and make the initial determination as to which were discoverable.  Our post on that March 20, 2008 order is available here.

In this recent decision, the court ruled upon motions by the City and one of the individual defendants seeking to prevent the discovery from going forward.  The moving defendants argued that the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S .C. § 2701 et seq., wholly precludes the production in civil litigation of electronic communications stored by a non-party service provider.  The court rejected this proposed reading of the SCA, observing that “[d]efendants’ position, if accepted, would dramatically alter discovery practice, in a manner clearly not contemplated by the existing rules or law, by permitting a party to defeat the production of electronically stored information created by that party and still within its control – information that plainly is subject to civil discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) – through the simple expedient of storing it with a third party.”  The court concluded that, because nothing in the plain language of the SCA requires this extraordinary result, and because defendants had not identified any other support for this proposition, the discovery effort contemplated in its March 20, 2008 opinion could go forward (albeit through slightly different means).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Keithley v. Home Store.com, Inc., 2008 WL 3833384 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008)

In this patent infringement case, plaintiffs sought terminating, evidentiary and monetary sanctions based upon defendants' spoliation of evidence.  Plaintiffs argued that defendants had destroyed three types of evidence:  (1) source code; (2) early architectural, design and implementation documents; and (3) reports.  Plaintiffs contended that the spoliation of these materials impacted plaintiffs' ability to meet their burden of proving infringement.

The court held several hearings and received extensive briefing on the spoliation issue, which the court observed “became a moving target because of Defendants' belated production of evidence that it had previously stated was either nonexistent or destroyed.”  In the end, the magistrate judge imposed a monetary sanction of fees and costs associated with defendants' discovery misconduct, and recommended that the district court give an adverse inference jury instruction to address the spoliation that occurred.  Although the magistrate judge found that the discovery misconduct by defendants in the case was "among the most egregious" the court had seen, she declined to recommend terminating sanctions because there was no evidence that defendants engaged in deliberate spoliation, and because the extreme sanction of dismissal would go beyond what was necessary to cure the prejudice to plaintiffs.

Some examples of defendants’ “reckless and egregious discovery misconduct” include the following:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gippetti v. UPS, Inc., 2008 WL 3264483 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that UPS fired him because of his age (reportedly, he was about 44 years old at the time).  UPS contended that Gippetti's termination had nothing to do with his age.  It maintained that he was fired for “stealing time” (i.e., sleeping on the job during periods he claimed to be working, taking excessive rest breaks and inaccurately recording meal and rest breaks) and because he did not properly complete truck safety inspections required by UPS and government regulations.

In discovery, plaintiff sought production of “tachograph records,” which were records that showed a vehicle's speed and the length of time it is moving or stationary.  UPS produced tachographs from 2007 and 2008, and agreed to produce the records on an ongoing basis.  However, UPS stated it was not able to locate any other responsive tachographs because its practice is, and since 2002 has been, to preserve such records for only 37 days due to the large volume of the data.

Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions, arguing that the destroyed tachograph records “would support that Plaintiff did not drive Route SU09 any differently than employees who were under the age of 40 years old.”  UPS responded that, until recently in this litigation, it had no reason to believe that all tachographs had any bearing on plaintiff's age discrimination claim before those records were destroyed years ago in accordance with the company's retention policy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 2008 WL 3198875 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 7, 2008)

In this lengthy opinion addressing a variety of issues, the bankruptcy judge denied defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as a sanction for the alleged spoliation of information considered in forming their opinions.  The court rejected defendants’ argument that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) required that the plaintiffs' experts produce all drafts of their reports:

The Court is not convinced that the plain language of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) imposes an obligation on a party or its experts to preserve and produce drafts of an expert's report.  See, e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 259 F.3d 135, 142 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like any other statute, should be given their plain meaning.”).  The Rule does not expressly include draft opinions in the list of what the expert must disclose.  Instead, the Rule requires that an expert's report contain a list of the data and other information on which he relied.  Fed. R. Civ.P . 26(a)(2)(B).  It does not seem logical that the Rule would require the final report to include a list of all the drafts of that report.  Further, because most experts now draft their reports on the computer, adding to and subtracting from the document, it would be impractical to require the production of all drafts.  For example, any time an expert added or subtracted a section, a paragraph, a sentence or even a word, the Defendants' reading of the Rules would require the expert to save the draft and preserve it for production later.  This is a completely unworkable reading of the Rules and would mire the courts in battles over each draft of an expert's report.  The Court concludes that this interpretation comports with neither the plain meaning of the Rule nor its policy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 WL 3287035 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008)

In this wage and hour employment case, plaintiff sought documents about class members' employment and salary history, terminations, performance evaluations, discipline, certain communications, and personnel files.  Rite Aid had demanded that plaintiff either travel to its various district office locations throughout California and copy the documents, or pay the copying expenses, which it estimated at $104,178.84.  The dispute was presented to the magistrate judge.  After weighing the factors set out in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, L.L.C., 217 F.R.D. 309, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the magistrate judge required Rite Aid to produce the documents at its own expense.

Rite Aid objected to the magistrate's ruling, arguing that Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 34 requires plaintiff, not Rite Aid, to bear the costs of photocopying.  The district judge agreed, concluding that the magistrate judge had “clearly erred” by analyzing the dispute under Zubulake:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

White v. Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2008 WL 3271924 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2008)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff moved for an order compelling defendants to, among other things, provide complete information on defendants' document retention policy and how such policy may have affected ESI responsive to certain discovery requests, and re-produce certain electronic documents in their native format.  The court denied the former, but granted the latter request.

Information on Defendants’ Document Retention Policy

Plaintiff’s discovery requests had asked defendants to identify any computer or electronic devices used by its management or human resources department in the years 2003 or 2004, and whether the device had been search or analyzed to determine if any files, notes, or documents related to plaintiff were contained on the device.  Plaintiff also asked that defendants identify and produce any documents related to plaintiff found on the device.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Bright v. United Corp., 2008 WL 2971769 (V.I. July 22, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that she slipped on drops of "a thick, pink liquid" while shopping at defendant supermarket, sustaining injuries to her left leg and ankle.  She sued for negligence, bodily injury, medical expenses, lost income and lost future earning capacity.  Defendant moved for summary judgment contending that it did not have notice of the spill which may have caused plaintiff’s injuries.  The trial court granted the motion, holding that, because plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that defendant knew or should have known about the substance on the floor, no reasonable jury could find that defendant had breached its duty to plaintiff as a matter of law.  Plaintiff appealed, and the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reversed and remanded, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to constructive notice.

Plaintiff’s fall was captured on defendant’s closed-circuit video surveillance system, which was comprised of both a digital hard drive that records only a finite amount of data before reusing itself and a video recorder.  The digital footage was automatically recorded over every few weeks unless it is manually copied from the digital hard drive to the video recorder.  The supermarket’s manager testified that he examined the footage of plaintiff’s fall immediately after being notified of her fall, and the video failed to show anything visible on the floor at the time of the fall.  Concluding that plaintiff "probably tripped on herself," the manager testified that he elected not to review or copy any of the footage prior to or after the fall.  He also testified that the store had no set procedure for retaining video footage of slip and fall accidents and that the store simply retained the footage of the actual fall in plaintiff’s particular circumstance.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Suarez Corp. Ind. v. Earthwise Techs., Inc., 2008 WL 2811162 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2008)

In this trademark infringement case, Suarez moved to compel Earthwise to organize and correlate responsive documents and ESI to Suarez's 136 or more requests for production.  Earthwise had produced “55,000 emails, six boxes of documents consisting of approximately 8,700 pages in .pdf form as [Suarez] requested, and nine CDs of data in native format that contain hundreds-if not thousands-of individual files.”  Suarez claimed that Earthwise's production was essentially a “document dump” without any cognizable organization.

Rule 34(b)(2)(E) provides:

Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information.  Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(i)  A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii)  If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produced it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii)  A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

There was no evidence that Suarez had requested that responsive ESI be produced in a specific form or that Earthwise had objected to that requested form, if any.  However, it was also unclear how Earthwise determined what documents were responsive to Suarez's requests.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Young v. Pleasant Valley Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 2857912 (M.D. Pa. July 21, 2008)

In this case, plaintiffs had requested that they be allowed to search the defendants' backup tapes in an attempt to discover whether other complaints were made to the district about the teacher who was at the center of the case.  After examining the relevant case law, the court concluded that it lacked sufficient information on the process of recovering deleted emails, the time required to do so, and the potential costs of that recovery.  As a result, the court ordered defendants to supply the information and delayed a decision on plaintiffs' motion until it had the information.

Defendants complied with the court’s request, and provided the following information:

(1) the district already possessed the equipment necessary to gain access to materials preserved on the backup tapes;
(2) the cost of the search would be a minimum of $10,000;
(3) a week would be needed to rebuild and restore the e-mail program, and additional time would be needed to access the emails;
(4) there were easily millions of emails stored on the server, and a precise number could not be reported until the server was rebuilt; and
(5) once the emails were restored, they could be searched by date, recipient, sender, subject or keywords.

The court concluded that the burden and expense of rebuilding the district's email system in order to provide the requested discovery, along with the additional and less expensive means available for plaintiffs to get this material, made the plaintiffs' discovery request impractical.  Accordingly, the court denied plaintiffs' motion.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ offer to have their own expert search the tapes: 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2008 WL 2779067 (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2008)

In June 2007, the court had ordered, among other things, that defendant Globe Electric Supply Co. “submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at Globe's sole expense and cost."  In November 2007, after finding Globe in contempt of court and considering that "the information at issue is important to the public health and safety in that the counterfeit circuit breakers represent a potential danger to unknowing consumers," the court again addressed the issue of the forensic inspection.  At that time, the court ordered Globe to:

submit to an inspection by Square D (including its attorneys), at Globe's expense, of its inventory of Square D circuit breakers as well as Globe's offices, warehouses, storage containers or facilities where Square D circuit breakers are or may be located, and also submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which records its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at Globe's sole expense and cost.

The court further ordered that said inspection occur within thirty days, or on or before December 14, 2007.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2704859 (N.D. Ohio July 7, 2008)

In this breach of contract litigation, the court had previously granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add a state law cause of action for spoliation of evidence based on defendant’s failure to implement a litigation hold.  Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Ohio 2008).  In this decision, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the spoliation claim, in light of genuine disputes over several material facts.

In an interesting passage, the court opines that liability for a state law spoliation of evidence cause of action does not result simply from the failure to implement a litigation hold:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2008 WL 2714239 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2008)

In this class action litigation, defendant moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), for an order requiring plaintiffs to pay at least 50 percent of its third party vendor electronic discovery costs.

The court first observed that the parties had entered a Stipulated Order for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, which noted that the parties held several discussions regarding the possibility of limiting the scope and extent of discovery and that future agreements might be reached.  The Stipulated Order also reserved to the parties the right to petition the court to limit the scope and burden of discovery and to request that the opposing party share the costs.

The court then cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and stated that, among the measures available to the court is the apportionment (or shifting) of costs between the requesting and the producing parties.  However, the court observed that defendant had not identified any form of ESI “as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,” nor did it file a motion for an order protecting it from the obligation of production.  Rather, defendant produced the information requested of it and sought, after the fact, an order imposing 50 percent of its costs upon plaintiffs.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cunningham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2668301 (D. Colo. July 1, 2008)

In this case arising out of a homeowner’s insurance claim, defendants sought a protective order to prevent plaintiff from inquiring into various topics during defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.  One topic was to be:  “Knowledge concerning the storage, preservation and backup of emails relating to claims authored or received by Susan Yeckley, Gilbert Friedmann and Alice Barron as well as any other adjusters who handled Plaintiff's claims.”

Defendants argued that the information sought in this topic was irrelevant to whether defendants breached plaintiff's insurance policy or acted in bad faith while adjusting his claim.  Defendants further stated that, to their knowledge, "all emails between Plaintiff and [Defendants] have been disclosed.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Peskoff v. Faber, 251 F.R.D. 59 (D.D.C. 2008)

In a previous decision, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola addressed the sufficiency of the search done by defendant Michael Faber for emails and other ESI in response to plaintiff’s discovery requests, and determined that it was "appropriate to ascertain the cost of forensic testing of the computers and server at issue to see if it justifies a forensic search of them."  Peskoff v. Faber, 244 F.R.D. 54, 63 (D.D.C. 2007).  The parties submitted a joint bid proposal, which the court distributed to numerous vendors.  Three bids were received, the lowest of which was $33,000.  When the parties failed to reach agreement on how to share that cost, the matter was submitted again to Judge Facciola for resolution.

The court noted it had already determined that the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) factors weighed strongly in favor of the discovery, since the information sought was highly relevant, not duplicative, and could not be obtained from other sources.  The court then addressed the cost of the forensic search, and observed that it was not a situation “where the anticipated cost of doing the forensic search will dwarf the final recovery,” given that Mr. Peskoff was demanding $2.5 million.  The court concluded that, when balancing the cost of the forensic examination against the factors favoring the discovery, good cause existed to compel the forensic examination.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Daimler Truck N. Am. LLC v. Younessi, 2008 WL 2519845 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2008)

In this case, Daimler sued its former employee in Oregon district court for breach of his duty of loyalty, his confidentiality contract, and his common law duty not to convert confidential and proprietary information, based upon the employee’s departure and subsequent employment by a competitor, Cascadia.  As part of that suit, Daimler served Cascadia with the third-party discovery requests at issue.  The parties resolved most of their disagreements, but were unable to resolve Daimler's request to search Cascadia's computers for communications between Younessi and Jim Hebe (a former CEO of Daimler who was subsequently employed by Cascadia) and between Hebe and other Daimler employees.  Cascadia moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order because Daimler's subpoena was both unduly burdensome and would require disclosing confidential trade secrets to a competitor.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2008) (Second Amended Ruling)

In this case, plaintiff (“SNET”) alleged that Global NAPS, Inc. had misrouted long-distance traffic of certain circuits not designated for such traffic, thereby depriving SNET of applicable access charges, and that Global failed to pay SNET access charges specified in SNET's federal tariff for special access circuits Global ordered from SNET's tariff.  In May 2006, the court granted SNET's Motion for a Prejudgment Remedy in the amount of $5.25 million.  At the same time, the court ordered Global to disclose assets sufficient to secure the prejudgment remedy within two weeks.  Global’s failure to comply with the court’s order evolved into a two-year discovery battle over Global’s financial records.

In December 2006, SNET filed an Amended Complaint, which added additional defendants affiliated with Global.  SNET's Amended Complaint alleged that the defendants' corporate structure was a "sham,” and sought to hold the defendants collectively liable for the underlying allegations set forth in SNET's original Complaint against Global.

In this opinion, the court found that the defendants willfully violated the court's discovery orders by failing to turn over their general ledgers and other business records, lied to the court about the inability to obtain documents from third parties, and destroyed and withheld documents that were within the scope of the discovery requests and the court’s discovery orders.  Among other things, defendants:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John B. v. Goetz, 2008 WL 2520487 (6th Cir. June 26, 2008)

In this case, state defendants sought mandamus relief from two discovery orders issued by the district court during the course of the class-action litigation.  The district court had issued the orders after a discovery dispute arose regarding defendants' duty to preserve and produce ESI relevant to the litigation.  In the first order, the district court directed plaintiffs' computer expert and a court-appointed monitor to inspect the state's computer system and the computers of 50 key custodians to ascertain whether any relevant information has been impaired, compromised, or removed.  The second order denied reconsideration of the first order and directed that the first order be executed forthwith.  Both orders allowed plaintiffs' computer expert to make forensic copies of the hard drives of identified computers, including not only those at the work stations of the state's key custodians, but also any privately owned computers on which the custodians may have performed or received work.  The orders also directed the U.S. Marshal, or his designated deputies, to accompany plaintiffs' computer expert to ensure full execution of the orders.

The Sixth Circuit entered an emergency stay of implementation of the orders on December 7, 2007, which was previously summarized here.

In this decision, the Sixth Circuit concluded that certain aspects of the district court's November 15 and 19 orders constituted a “demonstrable abuse of discretion.”  Accordingly, it granted, in part, defendants’ petition for mandamus and set aside those provisions of the district court's orders that required the forensic imaging of state-owned and privately owned computers, including the provisions that required the U.S. Marshal or his designee to assist plaintiffs' computer expert in the execution of the orders.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Perfect Barrier LLC v. Woodsmart Solutions Inc., 2008 WL 2230192 (N.D. Ind. May 27, 2008)

In this case, one of plaintiff’s requests for production sought emails -- plaintiff provided defendant with search terms and desired to have all emails that contained the relevant search terms.  Defendant complied with the request and produced approximately 75,000 pages of email documents on disk.  However, defendant designated the entire email production as Type C documents, “Attorney-Eyes-Only," pursuant to the parties' agreed protective order. 

Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to compel compliance with the protective order, and for sanctions.  At issue was whether defendant violated the terms of the parties' protective order by designating all emails as “attorney eyes only,” and whether defendant should be required to re-produce the email in a different format.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 2310288 (D. Del. June 4, 2008)

In this decision, the district court adopted the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation concerning the Motion of AMD and Class Plaintiffs to compel Intel to produce notes of its counsel's investigation interviews of designated employees concerning Intel's compliance with its evidence preservation obligations (the “Weil Materials”).  The Weil Materials included notes taken during and after the custodian interviews, meeting notices, emails between attorneys regarding the interviews, etc.  The court ordered Intel to produce the requested Weil Materials, as redacted by the Special Master.

Intel’s Preservation Efforts

On June 27, 2005, AMD filed its complaint against Intel.  On the same date, upon learning of the filing of the complaint, Intel assembled a team to put into place a process to "identify and preserve relevant paper and electronic documents" across six different continents.  Intel described its document retention plan as being tiered and having multiple layers of retention, including:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)

R & R Sails Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 251 F.R.D. 520 (S.D. Cal. 2008)

After a fire destroyed plaintiff’s manufacturing facility, defendant paid plaintiff for loss of property, but plaintiff claimed that the value of all lost property exceeded the amount paid.  Plaintiff also sought further payment under the insurance contract for loss of income, business interruption and extra expenses.  Plaintiff sued to enforce the contract, and also alleged bad faith in the handling of the claim.

In discovery, plaintiff noted that "conspicuously absent" from defendant's production of documents were "electronic or handwritten daily activity records/logs which are generally kept with an adjuster's notes and telephone call records.”   Defendant insisted that the documents did not exist.  During a discovery conference on the matter, the court expressed doubt as to the records’ nonexistence and ordered defendant either to produce the requested documents or submit a sworn declaration that the records did not exist.  Defendant thereafter submitted a sworn declaration from its senior property claims examiner (Lombardo) stating that "[t]here were no daily activity logs or telephone record logs that were created or maintained in connection with plaintiff's claim."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2008 WL 2142219 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that defendant erroneously reported two of his real property mortgage loans delinquent to credit reporting agencies.  Plaintiff claimed that defendant foreclosed on one loan and continued to erroneously report both loans delinquent after plaintiff spent nine months making multiple phone calls and sending correspondence, including cancelled checks and loan documents, verifying the loans were current.

Defendant contended that plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claim was supported with various letters he drafted on his two laptops and were “the very foundation of his claim.”  Defendant further contended that computer evidence revealed plaintiff may have manufactured the documents to support his claim and then flagrantly reformatted the hard drives on the laptops shortly after defendant informed him that they had been formally requested and were relevant to the case.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)

In this case, plaintiff sought a ruling that 165 electronic documents produced by defendants were not privileged because their production occurred under circumstances that waived any privilege or protected status.  The parties had previously agreed to a joint protocol to search and retrieve relevant ESI responsive to plaintiff’s Rule 34 requests.  The protocol contained detailed search and information retrieval instructions, including nearly five pages of keyword/phrase search terms aimed at locating responsive ESI.

In March 2007, defense counsel notified the court that individualized privilege review of the responsive ESI would delay production unnecessarily and cause undue expense.  To address this concern, defendants gave their computer forensics expert a list of keywords to be used to search and retrieve privileged and protected documents from the population of documents that were to be produced to plaintiff, and requested that the court approve a “clawback agreement” fashioned to address the concerns noted in Hopson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228 (D. Md. 2005).  Later, when the discovery deadline was extended, defense counsel notified the court that defendants would be able to conduct a document-by-document privilege review, thereby making a clawback agreement unnecessary.  Following their privilege review, defendants produced responsive ESI in September 2007.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ferron v. Search Cactus, L.L.C., 2008 WL 1902499 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff (a lawyer) brought claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act based upon emails he received.  Because only the unsolicited emails plaintiff received would support his claim under the Act, it was necessary for the parties to ascertain which of the emails plaintiff received were unsolicited.  Plaintiff's computer systems contained the only available documentary evidence that could show the pathways taken by plaintiff to solicit the emails or the absence of those pathways.

Defendants requested an inspection of plaintiff's computer systems so as to ascertain whether plaintiff's efforts with respect to receiving the emails and visiting the websites (that were at the heart of the action) constituted a consumer transaction under the OCSPA, or whether plaintiff's opening of the emails and any attempts to obtain free merchandise were part of a business designed to profit from email litigation

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 1831668 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008)

The court's order, in its entirety, provides:

All parties and their counsel are reminded of their duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to this action.  The duty extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the possession, custody and control of the parties to this action, and any employees, agents, contractors, carriers, bailees, or other non-parties who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in this action.  "Documents, data, and tangible things" shall be interpreted broadly to include writings, records, files, correspondence, reports, memoranda, calendars, diaries, minutes, electronic messages, voice mail, E-mail, telephone message records or logs, computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data, removable computer storage media such as tapes, discs and cards, printouts, document image files, Web pages, databases, spreadsheets, software, books, ledgers, journals, orders, invoices, bills, vouchers, check statements, worksheets, summaries, compilations, computations, charts, diagrams, graphic presentations, drawings, films, charts, digital or chemical process photographs, video, phonographic, tape or digital recordings or transcripts thereof, drafts, jottings and notes, studies or drafts of studies or other similar such material. Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also included in this definition.  Until the parties reach an agreements on a preservation plan or the Court orders otherwise, each party shall take reasonable steps to preserve all documents, data, and tangible things containing information potentially relevant to the subject mater of this litigation.  In addition, counsel shall exercise all reasonable efforts to identify and notify parties and non-parties of their duties, including employees of corporate or institutional parties, to the extent required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mikron Ind., Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., 2008 WL 1805727 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2008)

In this decision, District Judge Robert S. Lasnik denied defendants’ motion for a protective order which asked the court to shift the costs of producing ESI to the plaintiff.  Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), defendants argued that searching through their ESI would generate substantial costs and yield cumulative results.

Finding that defendants failed to discharge their meet and confer obligation in good faith, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), the court denied the motion on that basis.  The court then went on to consider the merits of the motion.  It found that defendants had also failed to demonstrate that plaintiff's discovery requests were unduly burdensome and/or cumulative, or that the requested ESI was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”  The court explained:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., 2008 WL 961216 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff sought the production of certain “DSFG Reports” which summarized information regarding the sales performance of employees in relation to their peers, and other key sales information.  Plaintiff knew about the existence of the DSFG Reports because he had received a facsimile of the June 2004 DSFG Report before he was terminated.  The fax was sent anonymously but the fax number was from defendant's Stamford, Connecticut office.  The June 2004 DSFG Report revealed that plaintiff was leading his division in sales performance.  After nine months of discovery, defendant had produced only four additional DSFG Reports.  In October 2007, plaintiff moved to compel production of the remaining seven DSFG Reports from the year prior to plaintiff's termination.

The court held a telephone conference to discuss the motion to compel and the whereabouts of the seven remaining DSFG Reports.  During the conference the attorneys maintained their respective positions on the matter:  plaintiff’s attorney believed that the defense attorneys were hiding or had deleted the DSFG Reports, and defense counsel gave assurances that such reports could not be located.  The court proposed that defendant permit a forensic computer consultant to inspect its computers, to which the attorneys agreed.  The court entered an inspection order, which included the following provisions:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2008 WL 920336 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2008)

This decision further refines the search protocol to be used to search data from computers used by certain defendants, which were imaged pursuant to two court orders issued in 2007.  The second imaging order sought to establish a protocol for searching the mirror images to identify relevant and responsive documents.  That protocol was refined in a November 5, 2007 order.  The protocol in place required keyword searches by technical experts; review of search result reports by defense counsel for facial claims of privilege; delivery of the reports to plaintiff’s counsel for preliminary assertion of responsiveness; defense counsel's review for responsiveness and privilege; and delivery of documents and privilege logs.

The parties had agreed on many search terms.  Plaintiff had accepted, with five additions, the search terms proposed by defendants in September 2007.  The issue decided on this motion related to the five additional search terms proposed by plaintiff, and the conjunctive or disjunctive use of the terms in the searches to be conducted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Baker v. Gerould, 2008 WL 850236 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008)

Plaintiff, an employee in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), alleged that defendants failed to promote him to the position of Captain in retaliation for having exercised his constitutional rights.  Plaintiff moved to compel the production of email between and among the parties, challenging the adequacy of defendants’ production.

Following oral argument on the motion, the court directed defendants to submit an affidavit describing the search undertaken to locate the requested emails.  In response, defendants filed an affidavit of the Director of the DEC's Division of Information Services.  Instead of explaining the steps undertaken to search for the emails, however, the affidavit only described the work that would be entailed in restoring deleted data from backup sources.  Although the director evidently assumed that as a result of the systematic, automatic deletion of unsaved emails generated more than 12 months earlier, any additional responsive emails between the parties were not reasonably accessible, his affidavit did not address what efforts, if any, were employed to search for such emails from accessible sources.  For example, the affidavit did not identify whether any search was undertaken to locate archived or saved emails, which, as he explained, was one method available to users to avoid deletion of emails.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 556 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

In this trademark infringement litigation, defendant sought to compel Autotech to produce an electronic copy of a word processing document entitled “EZTouch File Structure.”  Autotech had already produced the document in both .PDF format on a compact disc and paper format, and had also provided a “Document Modification History” representing a chronological list of all changes made since the “EZTouch File Structure” document was created.  Defendant argued that the  production was not acceptable, because the document existed in its “native format” on a computer at Autotech's offices in Bettendorf, Iowa.  Defendant wanted the “metadata” -- information it claimed was within the electronic version of the document including when the document was created, when it was modified, and when it was designated “confidential.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2008 WL 879746 (D. Nev. Mar. 28, 2008)

In this employment discrimination case, defendants sought a forensic examination of plaintiff’s home computers.  Defendants explained that the inspection would focus on information relating to Coburn's employment with defendants, the termination of that employment, allegations or claims Coburn was making in this action, and damages resulting from the actions or inactions of defendants.  Plaintiff did not object generally to a “limited, focused” inspection, but opposed the request because defendants had not set forth a protocol or methodology that would protect her against violations of privilege, privacy and confidentiality interests.

The court found that the burden on plaintiff of such an inspection would be minimal.  It noted that defendants sought only a mirror image or “clone copy” of the hard drive or drives in question, and that defendants had agreed to bear the entire cost of the forensic inspection.  The court cited approvingly the protocol adopted in Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1054-55 (S.D. Cal.1999), finding that it offered “a suitable approach for protecting Coburn's communications with her attorney, and her privacy interests as well as the confidentiality interests of her new employer.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2008 WL 866594 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that Biovail Corp., its CEO, general counsel and others engaged in a "smear campaign" that destroyed plaintiff's career as a securities analyst.  He asserted claims of defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy.  In February 2006, as previously summarized here, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV declined to enter a preservation order and ordered defendants to answer a “document retention questionnaire” and produce documents in native format.  In response that order, Biovail proceeded with the search protocol it had previously proposed, using the search terms (i) Treppel, (ii) Jerry, (iii) Bank of America, (iv) Banc of America, (v) BAS, and (vi) BofA.  Biovail searched the individual emails and files of certain key players, as well as the shared file drives of relevant departments.  It conducted the search by accessing certain backup tapes it had preserved, and images of the custodians' hard drives.

Subsequently, plaintiff requested that Biovail expand its search for electronic documents by adding some 30 search terms and numerous individual custodians to the original search.  Biovail declined on the grounds that plaintiff's request came too late and was overbroad.  Biovail produced the results of its search in May 2006.  After some additional discovery relating to Biovail's preservation of electronic data, discovery closed in December 2007.

Plaintiff then moved for an order compelling Biovail to search for additional ESI and imposing sanctions, alleging that the defendants did not adequately preserve evidence.  Defendants opposed both applications, contending that their production was complete and that their steps to preserve evidence were sufficient.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas v. City of Frisco, 2008 WL 828055 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2008)

In this case, the State of Texas sought a declaratory judgment and the court's protection from a general litigation hold request, initiated by a letter sent by the City of Frisco.  The letter asked the Texas Department of Transportation to generally preserve all electronic data associated with a particular highway toll project, and referred to potential litigation regarding the environmental evaluation of the toll project.  The State speculated that the City would likely bring suit pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; however, at the time the complaint was filed, no claims had been brought.  Thus, the State asked the court to enter a declaratory judgment ruling that the City's preservation letter "violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is contrary to rules governing a NEPA/APA claim in federal court."  The request for declaratory relief was the sole count made against the City of Frisco in the complaint.

The City of Frisco moved to dismiss, arguing that the State failed to plead the elements of any viable claim and was essentially asking the court for an advisory opinion concerning what action it must take to properly preserve those documents subject to the litigation hold.  The court agreed, and dismissed the complaint.  The court's analysis is set out below:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2008 WL 787061 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2008)

Plaintiff in this case is the minor son of a murder victim, whose murder remains unsolved.  The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a laxity in investigation, deliberately ignored and actively concealed material evidence, and deprived the plaintiff of an opportunity to bring a wrongful death suit against the murderer.

In a separate order on March 20, 2008, the court denied defendants’ motion to quash subpoenas to SkyTel for the production of certain text messages.  The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to pursue the production of certain text messages sent or received by specified officials or employees of the City of Detroit (some of whom were also named as individual defendants in the suit) during specified time frames, using text messaging devices supplied by SkyTel.  The court observed that the relevance (and hence discoverability) of the text messages necessarily turned upon the content of the communications.  Thus, it was essential to establish a procedure for the review of the content of each such communication.  Moreover, because a communication might be relevant, but not subject to discovery, e.g., protected by a privilege, the court stated that the procedure must be capable of addressing such issues and objections to production.

Accordingly, the court issued this order establishing a protocol for review and production of text messages, and assigning two magistrate judges to perform the review.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 2008 WL 793578 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2008)

This litigation concerns claims relating to respiratory injuries suffered by rescue and clean-up workers as a result of exposure to toxins and other contaminants in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  Approximately 10,000 cases are before the court.

In this decision, the court approved the Special Masters’ recommendation that Technology Concepts & Design, Inc. ("TCDI") be retained to build, maintain and operate a database, to store the “Core Discovery” that the parties had begun to produce, and will continue to produce, pursuant to the court’s “Core Discovery Order" of November 27, 2007.  The court explained that the “Core Discovery” will create a substantial amount of information, including insurance data from scores of contractors and subcontractors, and basic details concerning each plaintiff's claim.  The court continued:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

In this case, an automobile dealer brought suit alleging that DaimlerChrysler had breached a settlement agreement when it refused to grant the dealer a Chrysler franchise.  During the two years of discovery that followed, Schmidt alleged that DaimlerChrysler knowingly and intentionally destroyed relevant evidence.  Specifically, Schmidt alleged that DaimlerChrysler failed to implement a litigation hold to prevent the destruction of evidence after the complaint was filed in October 2004, and replaced or altered certain employees' hard drives days before Schmidt made forensic images of the drives as part of its discovery process.  Further, Schmidt alleged that DaimlerChrysler attempted to hide the extent and significance of its misconduct.  As a result, Schmidt sought to add a spoliation of evidence claim to the litigation.

The court observed that, under Ohio law, the elements for a spoliation of evidence cause of action are:

1) ... pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff; 2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the litigation exists or is probable; 3) willful destruction of the evidence by the defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff's case; 4) disruption of the plaintiff's case; and 5) damages proximately caused by the defendant's actions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Xpel Techs. Corp. v. Am. Filter Film Distribs., 2008 WL 744837 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2008)

In this brief order, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited computer forensic imaging, finding that good cause had been established.  The magistrate judge ruled that the costs of the forensic imaging would be borne by the plaintiff, and articulated a number of protocols for the parties to follow:

• Computer forensic analysis will be performed by Digitalworks, located at 13333 N. Central Expy., Ste. 201, Dallas, Texas 75243 (the "Forensic Examiner").
• All Forensic Examiners utilized must agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Order prior to the commencement of their services.
• Within two days of this Order or at such other time agreed to by the parties, defendants shall make its Computer(s), Server(s), and any other electronic storage devices located at Defendants' place of business at 1385 Westpark Way, Euless, Texas, including but not limited to Brett Wassell's laptop, which may be located at a different location, available to the Forensic Examiner to make mirror images of those devices as set out below:
   

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., 2008 WL 724627 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2008)

In this case involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, defendants objected to an order of a magistrate judge requiring them to disclose "forensically sound" images of certain data storage devices (Thermax's India and Michigan servers) to plaintiffs' counsel without any limitation as to the scope of the disclosure or prior filtering for privileged or work-product materials that the images might hold.  The production was required to permit a determination of whether defendants had violated an earlier stipulation and order that had imposed an ongoing obligation on defendants to return to plaintiffs any of plaintiffs’ files in their possession, and then to purge such files from their possession, custody and/or control.

The magistrate judge’s order had issued in the context of a dispute around the deposition of Stephen Wolfe, an employee of Huron Consulting Group, a computer forensic services firm relied on by defendants for both testifying and consultative expert work.  Wolfe testified that, at Thermax’s direction, he had performed two distinct tasks.  The first was to produce an expert report regarding whether an array of plaintiff’s information identified by plaintiff’s expert was located on a discrete set of data storage devices, after performing all necessary searches of images of the devices.  This set of devices did not include the India or Michigan servers.  The second task was to conduct electronic searches of images of Thermax’s India and Michigan servers for evidence of plaintiff’s files therein (which, in accordance with the parties' earlier stipulation and order, already should have been disclosed to plaintiffs and purged).  The two tasks were different in several ways, as each task involved searches of different devices, with the searches involved in the former task providing the exclusive basis of Wolfe's expert report, and the searches of the India and Michigan servers not informing his report in any respect.  In other words, Wolfe performed the former task in his capacity as a testifying expert, and performed the latter task in his capacity as a consulting expert.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2008 WL 704228 (D. Utah Mar. 10, 2008)

In this case involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and conversion, plaintiff sought sanctions for two claimed wrongs:  (1) defendants’ belated production of, and misrepresentations about, source code complete with developer comments; and (2) defendants’ failure to produce “smoking gun” email, which was produced by another party who was the recipient of the email.

The so-called “smoking gun” email was written by defendant Lonny Bowers on September 5, 2005.  Bowers was one of the founders and principals of defendant WideBand.  The email was only discovered in documents produced by defendant Biamp, the recipient of the email, not in any discovery from the WideBand defendants.  The WideBand defendants explained that the computer system used by Bowers did not retain copies of email sent by Bowers.  On this point, the court observed:

For any business this is a significant irregularity; almost unimaginable for a technology company; and even more unlikely for a person of Bowers' importance in such a company.  Nonetheless, it does not appear that the September 5, 2005, email was withheld by WideBand Defendants -- they did not have any copies of emails sent by Bowers. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Equity Analytics, LLC v. Lundin, 248 F.R.D. 331 (D.D.C. 2008)

In this case, plaintiff Equity Analytics claimed that defendant, its former employee, gained illegal access to electronically stored information after he was fired.  Defendant explained that another Equity employee had granted him permission to use the employee’s username and password to access a particular Equity computer system.  Defendant admitted that he had accessed the system some 18 times over a 90-day period, and had used his Macintosh computer to do it.

In November 2007, the district court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from “accessing or attempting to access Equity Analytics, LLC's data on Salesforce.com for any purpose.”  The judge initially struck from the TRO a requirement that defendant permit Equity to have a computer forensic expert examine his computer to ascertain:  (1) whether defendant accessed Equity's confidential customer data and/or trade secrets; (2) whether the data has been forwarded to defendant’s new employer an Equity competitor; and (3) whether the data was purged or overwritten.  The parties subsequently agreed that a computer forensic specialist should be permitted to examine defendant’s Macintosh computer, but they could not reach agreement on the search protocol.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

City of Seattle v. Prof'l Basketball Club, LLC, 2008 WL 539809 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008)

The discovery dispute in this decision involved the City of Seattle's request to have defendant Professional Basketball Club, LLC (“PBC”) search for and produce responsive emails for six of its eight members.  In January 2008, PBC produced approximately 150,000 emails from two members of PBC.  It objected to producing emails for the remaining six PBC members because such a search would “increase the universe exponentially” and would generally produce irrelevant documents.  The City moved to compel production of the requested emails.

The court first considered whether the requisite principal-agent relationship existed to establish that PBC had the legal right to obtain documents upon demand from its members.  The court analyzed PBC’s operating agreement under Oklahoma law, and concluded that the City had met its burden in establishing that PBC had “possession, custody, or control” over the at-issue documents for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

Next, the court found that the substance of the requested emails – information regarding the formation of PBC and the Sonics' finances – may be relevant to the underlying issues.  Given the liberal discovery rules, the court declined to limit the City's inquiry on relevancy grounds.  It stated that, whether such evidence warrants admissibility is a distinctly separate question that would be addressed at the appropriate time.

Finally, the court observed that the Federal Rules contemplate a specific requirement when a party objects to the production of electronically stored information, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).  The court faulted PBC’s lack of specificity, stating that PBC had not explained why producing the emails at issue would be unnecessarily burdensome.  It continued:
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Petcou v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2008 WL 542684 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2008)

In this employment discrimination case, the court had previously ordered defendant to produce computer-generated reports of attempts by its employees to access adult websites at two of its branches during the relevant time period.  Although the court had denied plaintiffs' request for email messages with adult content, it gave plaintiffs the option to file a motion for reconsideration after they had been given an opportunity to obtain evidence regarding defendant’s burden of production.  This opinion addresses plaintiffs’ renewed motion, in which they requested that defendant produce “at a minimum, documents showing any emails of a sexual or gender derogatory nature sent from 1998 through 2006.”

Evidence relating to defendant’s burden was as follows:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Finley v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 509084 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff claimed that defendant wrongfully terminated her disability benefits in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiff also alleged that Hartford violated her right to privacy by causing its agent Dempsey Investigators to trespass onto her land and videotape her and her roommate through the kitchen window of plaintiff’s home.

When Hartford served its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, it indicated it was disclosing a copy of the administrative record related to plaintiff’s disability claim, and produced among other things copies of the claim file, electronic notes and surveillance videos conducted by Dempsey.  Due to what Hartford calls an "administrative oversight," the videos produced did not contain the footage of plaintiff in her kitchen.  Hartford later produced the “kitchen video” in a supplemental disclosure under Rule 26(e).  Hartford argued that it complied with its usual procedure and that a reasonable search was done, and that as soon as it discovered that the full video had not been disclosed it complied with Rule 26(e) and supplemented its earlier disclosure.

Plaintiff sought sanctions, alleging that Hartford failed to disclose the kitchen video in violation of Rule 26(a); that Hartford's attorney certified Hartford's initial and incomplete disclosure in violation of Rule 26(g); and that Hartford failed to produce the kitchen video in response to a particular request for production.  Plaintiff sought sanctions in the amount of the costs and attorney's fees she spent taking the depositions of Dempsey witnesses and retaining the services of an expert.  She argued that she took these depositions and engaged this expert solely because defendant did not produce the kitchen video in a timely manner, and that she would not have otherwise engaged the expert, or taken the depositions.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2008 WL 474127 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2008)

This Fair Labor Standards Act overtime collective action was brought on behalf of approximately 422 plaintiffs who worked as "loan consultants" for defendants.  After defense counsel objected to plaintiffs' requests to produce emails of the several hundred individual plaintiffs and their 32 team leader managers, plaintiffs agreed to limit the relevant time period to the months of April, May and June of 2004.  They proposed that, after they reviewed all the emails and narrowed them down to those they thought were relevant, they would give defendants an opportunity to review this reduced set of emails and raise any attorney client privilege or other objections they might have and retrieve items that should be protected.  Fearing that this "claw back" provision could be deemed a waiver of the privilege in some states, defense counsel was relunctant either to agree to the provision or to produce the relevant back up tapes because of the exceedingly expensive process of defense counsel screening them for privilege before production.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel to resolve the dispute and a hearing was held.  The court established a protocol that was intended to balance the concerns and needs of both sides at what was hoped to be manageable costs.  Under the protocol, plaintiffs' computer forensic expert, Mark Lanterman, was to retrieve from defendants' computer back up tapes all of the emails for the months of April, May and June of 2004.  Based on search terms and methods to be worked out by the attorneys for both sides, Mr. Lanterman, "at Plaintiffs' reasonable expense for his services and the electronic copying expenses," was to filter this database for the team leaders and hundreds of plaintiffs.  Mr. Lanterman was to act under the "direction and control" of defense counsel in retrieving the requested emails from the backup tapes.  The searching and filtering of defendants' database by Mr. Lanterman would be limited to the terms agreed upon by the parties.  Further, Mr. Lanterman was required to sign a declaration agreeing to the agency relationship with and under the direction and control of defense counsel, to be bound by the court's orders and to maintain confidentiality.  At the hearing, while plaintiffs' counsel agreed to pay the reasonable expenses of Mr. Lanterman, he expressed a desire to limit the costs to no more than what was needed and not to be giving defense counsel a "carte blanche" to run up the costs of the screening procedure at plaintiffs' expense.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 29, 2008, attorneys James R. Batchelder, Adam A. Bier, Kevin K. Leung, Christian E. Mammen, Lee Patch and Stanley Young, as well as certain Qualcomm in-house attorneys, appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, as directed in her January 7, 2008 Order.  Also appearing were outside counsel for Qualcomm, counsel for some of the sanctioned attorneys, and counsel for Broadcom.  The attorneys spent the day working to develop a comprehensive Case Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations ("CREDO") protocol, and at the end of the day, several attorneys appeared before the court again to report on their progress.  After reviewing counsel’s draft protocol and hearing their plans for developing it further, Magistrate Judge Major scheduled a status hearing for February 19, 2008 at 11 a.m.

Also on January 29, 2008, United States Senior District Judge Rudi M. Brewster issued an order requesting that the parties provide him with courtesy copies of all their filings related to the Magistrate Judge’s January 7, 2008 Order, in light of the objections and requests for reconsideration that were timely filed by the sanctioned attorneys.  (Qualcomm itself did not file a written objection to the January 7, 2008 Order.)  View the attorneys’ objections here:  Batchelder, Mammen & Leung Objection; Young Objection; Patch Objection; Bier Objection.

View Broadcom’s response to the attorney objections.

The court has not yet set a hearing date on the attorneys' objections and requests for reconsideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

D'Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 43 (D.D.C. 2008)

In this contentious employment discrimination case, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola resolved a number of discovery disputes relating to the production of electronically stored information.

Among other relief, plaintiff sought the production of a certain business plan in its original electronic format, with accompanying metadata.  Plaintiff argued that Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 permits the production of documents outside of their original format only "if necessary," and that in this case, there was no such necessity.  Defendants responded that:  (a) plaintiff did not request that the Business Plan or any other documents be produced in a specific format; (b) production in original electronic format with metadata is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in the absence of a clear agreement or court order, neither of which were present here; and (c) plaintiff had not demonstrated the relevance of the metadata.

The court rejected plaintiff’s interpretation of Rule 34:

Rule 34(a) does not set forth constraints on the manner of production, but instead establishes the permissible scope of a request.  Consequently, the "if necessary" clause seized upon by plaintiff is actually a constraint on the requesting party rather than the responding party.  In other words, electronic data is subject to discovery if it is stored in a directly obtainable medium.  If, however, it is not stored in a directly obtainable medium, a request may be made of the responding party to translate the electronic data into a "reasonably usable form."  Because the step of translating this type of electronic data adds an extra burden on the responding party, the request may only seek for it to be done "if [the translation is] necessary."  It is not the case that this clause requires the responding party to produce data in its original form unless "necessary" to do otherwise.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:07-cv-01707-HHK (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2008)

This case involves a claim by the National Security Archive (“the Archive”) and Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington that several million email messages were improperly deleted from White House computer servers.  Plaintiffs have requested that the court compel expedited discovery and a Rule 26(f) conference, and defendants have moved to dismiss the case.  On Tuesday, January 8, 2008, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola ordered the White House to provide additional information about the backup media it is preserving in the litigation pursuant to an earlier court order.  The court explained the relevance of the information to its decision on plaintiffs’ pending discovery motion:

To the extent that the missing emails are contained on the back-ups preserved pursuant to Judge Kennedy’s order, there is simply no convincing reason to expedite discovery – particularly where, as here, there is a pending motion to dismiss.  If the missing emails are not on those back-ups, however, the relief likely to be requested by the Archive will be beyond the scope of the present Motion – and, indeed, beyond the scope of this referral.  The request for that relief will also be time-sensitive:  emails that might now be retrievable from email account folders or “slack space” on individual workstations are increasingly likely to be deleted or overwritten with the passage of time.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)

On Monday, January 7, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued her Order on Broadcom’s Motion for Sanctions related to Qualcomm’s failure to produce tens of thousands of documents that Broadcom had requested in discovery.  (A copy of the January 7 order downloaded from Westlaw is available here.)  Additional background regarding the sanctions motion is available in our previous posts on the case on September 20, 2007, August 29, 2007 and August 13, 2007.

In this most recent order, the judge ordered Qualcomm to pay Broadcom $8,568,633.24 for its “monumental and intentional discovery violation,” representing all of Broadcom’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the litigation.  (Because the trial judge had already awarded these costs and fees to Broadcom in its Exceptional Case Order, the court directed that Qualcomm receive credit toward this penalty for any money it paid to Broadcom to satisfy the exceptional case award.)

The court also found that six of Qualcomm’s outside attorneys “assisted Qualcomm in committing this incredible discovery violation by intentionally hiding or recklessly ignoring relevant documents, ignoring or rejecting numerous warning signs that Qualcomm’s document search was inadequate, and blindly accepting Qualcomm’s unsupported assurances that its document search was adequate.”  The court observed that these six attorneys “then used the lack of evidence to repeatedly and forcefully make false statements and arguments to the court and jury.”  As such, the court found that the attorneys had violated their discovery obligations and also may have violated their ethical duties.  Accordingly, the court concluded that sanctions against the six named outside attorneys were also warranted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Honza, 2007 WL 4591917 (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2007)

Defendants in underlying real estate litigation sought a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to set aside a discovery order that required them to permit a forensic expert to create a mirror image of each of the computer hard drives in their office in an effort to locate two particular documents or iterations of those documents.  The documents were two drafts of a partial assignment of a real estate contract, and served as the basis for the underlying suit.  Plaintiff A & W Development, LLC had sought the metadata because it wanted to identify the points in time when the partial assignment draft was modified in relation to a particular diary entry.   The evidence related to the issue of whether the Honzas altered the partial assignment after the parties concluded their agreement.

The Honzas contended that the court abused its discretion because:  (1) the discovery order was overbroad and authorized an improper "fishing expedition"; (2) the order authorized the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (3) the order authorized the disclosure of confidential information pertaining to the Honzas' other clients who had no connection to the underlying lawsuit.

The appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, finding that the order was not overbroad and was appropriately tailored to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of privileged or confidential information.  In reaching its decision, the appellate court noted that there was no Texas authority directly on point, and described the relevant state and federal decisions:
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Toussie v. County of Suffolk, 2007 WL 4565160 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007)

In this case, plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights had been violated when the defendants denied them the opportunity to purchase real estate at auction.  The email dispute was first brought to the court's attention in August 2006, when the plaintiffs moved to compel supplemental discovery responses from the County.  Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the County had failed to perform a diligent search for responsive documents, evidenced by the fact that it had only produced two emails.  During a conference with the court on the matter, counsel for the County suggested that since it was "more the exception than the rule," that employees were "communicating be email," a further search was unlikely to uncover additional emails.  However, because it became clear that the County had failed to conduct a system wide search for responsive emails, the court directed the County to have its Information Technology Department search the County's servers for responsive emails.

In October 2006, plaintiffs moved for sanctions, contending that the County had willfully failed to comply with the court's order.  In response, the County submitted an affidavit from its Director of Management Information Services, explaining that the County lacked the resources to perform the court-ordered search for additional emails.  He estimated that the cost to restore the County’s backed up data would be roughly $36,000, and that the process would take as much as 1,700 man hours.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Columbia Pictures Inc. v. Bunnell, No. 2:06-cv-01093 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007) (Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

The court imposed terminating sanctions and entered default judgment against defendants in this copyright litigation as a result of defendants’ willful spoliation of key evidence.  The court found that defendants had deleted and/or modified relevant TorrentSpy user forums postings, deleted directory headings that referenced copyrighted works, destroyed user IP addresses and withheld the identities and addresses of site moderators.  The court concluded that defendants’ misconduct had “inalterably prejudiced” plaintiffs’ ability to prove their case, and that terminating sanctions were the only effective recourse.

A copy of the decision is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Lowry Dev., LLC, 2007 WL 4268776 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2007)

This insurance coverage litigation stemmed from property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  Plaintiff Great American contended that there was a mutual mistake of fact in connection with the formation of the insurance contract, arguing that the parties, acting through their agents, understood that wind damage coverage was excluded.  In this decision, the court ruled on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for the destruction of a laptop computer by defendant’s insurance agent (Groves), who was also a defendant in the case.

During the summer of 2006, Groves disposed of a personal computer which may have contained information relevant to the issues in dispute.  Although the specific contents of the computer’s hard drive were unknown, the court found that there was evidence in the record that Groves used the computer to prepare correspondence and emails related to the purchase of the policy at issue.  Plaintiff argued that these computer records may have shed considerable light on the question whether Groves believed, at the time he negotiated the purchase of the policy, that the policy would provide coverage for wind damage.  That disputed issue of fact was at the heart of the defense of mutual mistake Great American sought to establish.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ryan v. Gifford, 2007 WL 4259557 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007)

In this letter opinion, the court ruled upon a number of discovery disputes, including one relating to the format of production.  Plaintiff sought an order compelling a defendant to respond to documents requests “in native file format, with original metadata, but without a separate production of metadata.”  Granting that portion of plaintiff’s motion, the court explained:

[M]etadata may be especially relevant in a case such as this where the integrity of dates entered facially on documents authorizing the award of stock options is at the heart of the dispute.  This relevance is further illustrated by the fact that Maxim's special committee, as well as Deloitte & Touche, undoubtedly reviewed metadata as part of their investigation into the backdating problems at Maxim.  This latter fact also undermines the asserted burdensomeness of producing documents in native file format.  Maxim need not produce metadata separately, but the Court does order the production of documents identified in plaintiffs' July 3rd motion to compel in a format that will permit review of metadata, as plaintiffs have clearly shown a particularized need for the native format of electronic documents with original metadata.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

W.E. Aubuchon Co., Inc. v. BeneFirst, LLC, 245 F.R.D. 38 (D. Mass. 2007)

In this case, plaintiffs sued the third-party administrator of their employee medical benefits plans, alleging that it breached its fiduciary duty and the underlying contract by failing to perform its duties in a reasonably prudent manner.  In an earlier motion to compel, plaintiffs had sought, among other things, to compel BeneFirst to produce all medical claims files, including the actual medical bills in BeneFirst's custody or control.  The court ruled that BeneFirst was to provide those files and bills.  BeneFirst sought reconsideration of that ruling, arguing that the requested claims forms were not reasonably accessible within the meaning of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) because of the high cost to retrieve such information (both in monetary terms and in terms of the man hours it would require to retrieve the information).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Orrell v. Motorcarparts of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 4287750 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2007)

In this sexual harassment and gender discrimination case, plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging a hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, and retaliation.  Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed by several male co-workers and/or supervisors, as well as some of the defendant's customers.  Most significantly for the purposes of the pending discovery motions, plaintiff contended that some of the harassment was in the form of "pornographic" and "offensive" emails that she was sent by co-workers and customers.  Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had received an "overwhelming number" of those emails, "even hundreds" of them.  Although plaintiff received these emails on the laptop computer that defendant provided, she testified that it was her practice was to forward those emails to her home email address and store them on her home computer.  Plaintiff also testified that she forwarded some of these offensive emails to her husband, some of which he received on his computer at his job with the Bendix corporation, a non-party.

Shortly after receiving notice of her termination, but prior to returning her work laptop computer to defendant, plaintiff, with the aid of her husband, had the laptop's hard drive "wiped."  (Defendant later performed a forensic examination of the laptop, which confirmed that no information could be retrieved from the hard drive.)  Plaintiff testified that her purpose in "wiping" the hard drive was to prevent any of her personal information being returned to defendant.  However, plaintiff’s husband presented a slightly different version of events at his deposition, testifying that although he ultimately took the computer to an information technology consultant who "wiped" the computer with a program entitled "Evidence Eliminator," he initially contemplated taking the computer to a "shooting gallery" where it would be destroyed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2007 WL 4277564 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2007)

In this employment discrimination litigation, the magistrate judge made a number of findings and conclusions relevant to several outstanding e-discovery disputes.  Among other things, the judge found:

• That defendant conducted “an adequate and full search of all ESI formatted documents that may be relevant to the issues before this court and which are in [defendant’s] possession.”  Nevertheless, defendant agreed to conduct an additional search, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, a copy of which is available here.  Among other things, defendant agreed to conduct an additional electronic search of ESI, using keyword searches agreed upon by the parties.
• “That the 2006 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 simply clarify 'that discovery of electronically stored information stands on equal footing with discovery of paper documents.'  See Advisory Committee's Note on 2006 Amendments.  Consequently, without a qualifying reason, plaintiff is no more entitled to access to defendant's electronic information storage systems than to defendant's warehouses storing paper documents[.]”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567 (D. Minn. 2007)

Best Buy sued its landlords for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment, claiming that they overcharged insurance and maintenance costs for common areas.  On September 5, 2007, the magistrate judge ruled on a number of discovery motions filed by the parties.  (A copy of the September 5, 2007 Order is available here.)  Among other things, the magistrate judge concluded that a database prepared by Best Buy in the case of Odom v. Microsoft Corp. (the "Odom database") was reasonably accessible despite a cost of at least $124,000 to restore the data to searchable form.  The magistrate judge found that $124,000 was a reasonable cost considering the potential breach of contract damages exceeding $800,000, the potential for enhanced damages associated with Best Buy’s fraud claims, and the potential long-term economic impact of the outcome of the litigation on all parties.  Further, the magistrate judge noted that "discovery in the Odom case is complete [and] the database has ... been archived by an e-discovery vendor."  Thus, the magistrate judge ordered Best Buy to restore the Odom database to permit discovery by defendants in this case.

Best Buy objected, explaining that discovery in the Odom litigation was not complete, the database had not been archived, and "the data can only be restored from original sources such as backup tapes."  Thus, Best Buy argued that the magistrate judge clearly erred in determining that the Odom database was reasonably accessible and ordering its discovery.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John B. v. Goetz, No. 07-6373 (6th Cir. Nov. 26, 2007 and Dec. 7, 2007)

This case is a class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services, including early and periodic screenings for their physical well being, and dental and behavioral health needs.  Defendants in the case include Tennessee state officials who are in charge of the state programs for these services.

On October 9 and 10, 2007, following a series of conferences and hearings (including a one-week evidentiary hearing on e-discovery issues), the district court issued a 187-page Memorandum and accompanying Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to produce various electronically stored information (“ESI”).  The district court’s Memorandum and Order addressed search terms, key custodians, claims of undue burden and privilege, spoliation, sanctions and cost-shifting.  The district court also sharply criticized the defendants’ preservation and production methods, and ordered the production of all metadata and deleted information.  Further, the district court ordered that plaintiffs’ computer expert “shall be present for the [d]efendants’ ESI production and shall provide such other services to the defendants as are necessary to produce the metadata, as ordered by the Court.”  Additional background on the district court’s October 9 and 10 Memorandum and Order, with links to the 187-page Memorandum, is available in our previous blog entry. The district court subsequently appointed a monitor (former United States Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges of the District of New Jersey) to oversee the court-ordered ESI production.

Defendants moved for reconsideration and/or clarification of various issues addressed in the district court’s October 9 and 10 Memorandum and Order, including the plaintiffs’ expert’s role in the defendants’ production efforts.  On November 15, 2007, the district court issued an Order (dated November 14) directing that plaintiffs’ expert and the court-appointed monitor shall “forthwith inspect the State’s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action.”  The district court further directed that plaintiffs’ expert or his designee “shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (“ESI”).”  Finally, the district court ordered that the United States Marshall or his designated deputies should accompany the plaintiffs’ expert to “ensure that this Order is fully executed.”  A copy of the district court’s November 15 Order is available here; a copy of the Order from Westlaw is now available here.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

In re Rule 45 Subpoena Issued to Robert K. Kochan, 2007 WL 4208555 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2007)

In this decision, the district court adopted the Memorandum and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Gates which resolved a dispute centered around a subpoena issued in a case pending in the Southern District of Mississippi.  Plaintiffs in that case sued Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp. ("FAEC") and others for alleged fraud related to investigation of plaintiffs' insurance claims for damages caused by Hurricane Katrina.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum to nonparty Robert K. Kochan, a Virginia resident and the president of FAEC.  The subpoena directed Mr. Kochan to produce for inspection and copying the following information:

1.  As related or pertaining to Hurricane Katrina, to produce and permit inspection and copying through drive imaging, all electronically stored information created, stored or maintained on or after August 29, 2005, on any laptop computer ever utilized by Adam Sammis in the state of Mississippi at any time on or after August 29, 2005.  This request applies but is not limited to the laptop computer(s) utilized by Adam Sammis while working in the mobile R/V office Forensic Analysis & Engineering deployed to the Mississippi Gulf Coast before, on or after September 26, 2005; and

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb. v. BASF Corp., 2007 WL 3342423 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007)

In this patent and licensing litigation, the court had previously ordered plaintiff to produce “development documents” related to the project at issue in the litigation.  According to defendant, plaintiff produced 1,737 pages of documents by the order’s deadline in February 2006, but then later produced more than 11,000 pages of new responsive documents in the final days of discovery in the fall of 2007.  Defendant argued that these late-produced documents fell squarely within the ambit of the court’s order and should have been produced 18 months earlier.  Defendant also argued that plaintiff had failed to meet its preservation obligations.

At his deposition, one of the key players employed by plaintiff testified that he was not specifically directed by plaintiff’s counsel to search for electronically stored documents; he was asked to produce “all documents” related to his research, and he produced only hard copy documents without examining his electronic files.  In addition, the witness stated that during 2005 the University changed the storage system for the archiving of electronically produced information, from a University-wide archiving system to a more localized, “individual computer” storage system.  As part of that process the witness reviewed his computer-stored information and preserved what he deemed was important.  Conversely, of course, and without guidance, he deleted what he viewed as unimportant.  He testified that, in that process, neither the University nor counsel directed that electronically stored information pertaining to the relevant project be preserved in any form.  Further, the University's computer system was such that some emails would be automatically deleted “at some point” if not preserved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 2007 WL 4181900 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2007)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff sought a protective order blocking the production of documents by a non-party in response to defendant’s subpoena.  The court found that plaintiff had not established good cause for the protective order, in part because the time frame of the requests was reasonable.  The court also noted that, because plaintiff’s 2004 emails were allegedly unavailable (discussed below), defendant had no other way to obtain some of the information.  The court thus denied the motion for protective order; it also denied the non-party’s motion to quash, which was based on general relevancy and (unsupported) undue burden arguments.

At the same time, defendant sought an order compelling plaintiff to produce the hard drives of certain employees for inspection by an independent expert, and to produce all responsive 2004 emails.  Defendant also sought various sanctions for plaintiff’s alleged failure to produce the material in accordance with the court’s prior order on the subject.

Plaintiff responded that it had produced all responsive documents in its possession.  However, it explained that, due to a computer error following a server change that occurred prior to litigation, its 2004 emails were "unloadable.”  It also claimed that it had no hard copies of any 2004 emails.  As such, plaintiff contended that it could not produce any 2004 emails.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parkdale Am., LLC v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 4165247 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2007)

In this case, Carolina corporations that manufacture and sell cotton yarn sought a declaratory judgment that, pursuant to an insurance contract, the defendant was obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiffs concerning claims in ten underlying antitrust lawsuits.  Plaintiffs also asserted state claims for breach of contract, bad faith denial of insurance claims, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.  The court in this opinion resolves a number of discovery disputes, one of which related to the production of email by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs had raised an objection in their briefs to producing unidentified but admittedly non-privileged emails on the grounds of undue burden and expense ($20,000 to convert the emails into a searchable format).  However, at the hearing the parties' counsel explained to the court that those emails were a key player’s emails which were subsequently produced at a lesser (and shared) cost.  When defense counsel argued that there was “very little useful information in those emails,” plaintiff’s counsel renewed plaintiffs’ objection as to other emails on the grounds of relevance and the burden and cost of searching them for privileged information.

The court cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and 26(b)(2)(C), and found that the disputed discovery requests sought evidence that was relevant, and in some cases, “pivotal” to the issues in the case.  It stated: “In other words, absent a valid privilege or an undue burden or expense in production sufficient to override the Defendant's right to conduct otherwise reasonable discovery, the Plaintiffs must respond fully to those discovery requests.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Smith v. Cafe Asia, 246 F.R.D. 19 (D.D.C. 2007)

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a host and waiter at Café Asia, a restaurant located in Washington, D.C.  Plaintiff claimed that he was the victim of discrimination based on his sexual orientation, and that he was the subject of assault and battery in the form of unwanted touching.  Among other things, plaintiff alleged that the kitchen staff routinely harassed him, that management tolerated and encouraged the verbal and physical harassment, and that one manager had sent him an email containing pornographic images portraying homosexual acts.  The defendant restaurant responded that all of the alleged incidents were welcomed, encouraged and instigated by plaintiff.

Defendant requested that it be permitted to inspect and make copies of images stored on plaintiff's cell phone.  Defendant alleged that the images portray plaintiff's genitalia at various states of arousal, and graphic images of other men purported to be plaintiff's sexual partners.  Defendant argued that the images were relevant to whether plaintiff invited a hostile work environment and whether he was subjectively offended by defendant's alleged conduct.

Plaintiff conceded that his cell phone contained “intimate, highly personal” and “unclothed images,” but denied having willingly shared the images with his co-workers.

Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola ruled that, balancing defendant’s need for the images against plaintiff’s valid privacy concerns, plaintiff would be required to preserve the images and permit inspection by one attorney designated by defendant only so far as necessary to fully inform its discovery and trial preparation. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mich. First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc., 2007 WL 4098213 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2007)

In May 2007, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and directing defendant to supplement its discovery responses specifically with regard to electronically stored documents.  In its initial objections to the discovery requests, defendant had objected to the request that it produce records "as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business in their 'native format,' along with the intact metadata."  Specifically, defendant objected to the request as "unduly burdensome" and "impos[ing] obligations on Cumis beyond those permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."  When defendant served the supplemental responses required by the court’s May order, it produced the material on CD-ROMs in readable PDF form, but did not include metadata or provide the material in native format.

Plaintiff moved for sanctions, arguing that the production violated the court’s May order.

The court concluded that, because its May order did not address the issue of metadata or "native format" files, it could not be said that defendant's failure to produce that information was a violation of that order.  As such, there was no basis to sanction the defendant.  Further, after considering the submissions and arguments of the parties, the court found that defendant's objections to the production of metadata were well founded, and clarified its May order to reflect that defendant shall not be required to produce its electronically stored documents in "native format" or to produce metadata. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

PSEG Power New York, Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc., 2007 WL 2687670 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007)

Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece began his memorandum decision and order in this construction litigation with these introductory remarks:

With the rapid and sweeping advent of electronic discovery, the litigation landscape has been radically altered in terms of scope, mechanism, cost, and perplexity.  This landscape may be littered with more casualties than successes and the discovery imbroglio in this case is a prime example of this observation.  For nearly six months, the parties and the Court have been grappling with an electronic discovery monstrosity with the hope that it could be corralled and definitively resolved, thereby obviating the need for motion practice.  Alas, attempts to resolve the issue in lieu of briefs fell woefully beyond the parties' grasp and, as the last straw, they have set the matter at our feet for appropriate resolution.

The parties’ electronic discovery dispute arose when numerous emails being produced by PSEG were “divorced” from their attachments due to a technical glitch in the software used by PSEG’s e-discovery vendor.  (None of the raw data had been lost, and all 750 gigabytes of unfiltered data remained intact and in its original format.)  Upon discovering the problem, the parties attempted to determine whether a reasonable solution was feasible.  However, it became apparent that remarrying the emails to their attachments would be “formidable and costly.”  A number of potential solutions were attempted, none of which proved successful.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Nat’l. Security Agency Telecomms. Records Litig., 2007 WL 3306579 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007)

In this brief order, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order prohibiting the alteration or destruction of evidence during the pendency of the action.  Among other things, the court ordered:

Counsel are directed to inquire of their respective clients if the business practices of any party involve the routine destruction, recycling, relocation, or mutation of such materials and, if so, direct the party, to the extent practicable for the pendency of this order, either to

(1) halt such business processes;

(2) sequester or remove such material from the business process; or

(3) arrange for the preservation of complete and accurate duplicates or copies of such material, suitable for later discovery if requested.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Schmidt v. Levi Strauss & Co., 2007 WL 2688467 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007) (Not for Citation)

Plaintiffs brought this action under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, claiming they were terminated in retaliation for filing complaints about defendants’ alleged tax fraud and other accounting irregularities.  Among other relief requested in their motion to compel, plaintiffs asked the court to order defendants to reproduce, in native electronic format, all documents which they had produced over the course of the litigation.  The court noted that the precise documents plaintiffs were seeking, and the reasons why electronic versions were being sought, “have been somewhat of a moving target in their papers.”  The court observed that plaintiffs had originally suggested that certain (unidentified) documents had been edited or altered by defendants or by their attorneys.  However, the court found no indication in the record that defendants' documents had been altered in any way – except to the extent that defense counsel added document production numbers, confidentiality labels and, in some instances, indicated that certain information had been redacted.

In their reply papers, plaintiffs explained that they needed the electronic versions of (unidentified) emails and attachments as well as all documents which contained information that did not fit on a standard 8.5″x11″ page.  They further claimed that they were unable to track which attachments were sent with any given email, and argued that they were unable to properly analyze hard-copy spreadsheets (some of which reportedly were hundreds of pages long) that contained financial information that ran over the margins of a standard page. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:07-cv-01707-HHK (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2007)

On Monday, November 12, 2007, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola and ordered the White House to:  “preserve media, no matter how described, presently in their possess[ion] or under their custody or control, that were created with the intention of preserving data in the event of its inadvertent destruction.”  Judge Kennedy further ordered:  “Defendants shall preserve the media under conditions that will permit their eventual use, if necessary, and shall not transfer said media out of their custody or control without leave of this court.” 

In this consolidated action, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington ("CREW") and The National Security Archive are seeking to preserve for history the records of the Bush presidency.  The organizations challenge as contrary to law "the knowing failure of the defendants to recover, restore and preserve certain electronic communications created and/or received within the White House."  The plaintiffs further allege:

The e-mails at issue were improperly deleted from servers maintained by the Executive Office of the President and currently exist only on back-up tapes, if at all.  Unless relief is granted and the e-mail expeditiously restored from the back-up tapes, these federal and presidential records may be lost forever.  This action also challenges the failure of the Archivist and the head of the Office of Administration to take enforcement action to ensure adequate preservation of all federal records.

[] In addition, this lawsuit seeks an order requiring the defendants to implement an adequate electronic records management system in compliance with federal law.  The current administration abandoned the previous electronic records management system in 2002 and has failed to implement another system, creating a situation in which emails that should have been preserved as either federal or presidential records were instead improperly deleted.  Moreover, in the absence of an adequate electronic records management system, e-mails continue to be deleted improperly from the servers. . . .

Complaint, at pp. 2-3.  Defendants have stated they intend to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of today’s order is available here, and a copy of Magistrate Judge Facciola’s October 19, 2007 Report and Recommendation is available here.

An article about the ruling is available here.

CREW has also moved for expedited discovery and has asked the court to compel a Rule 26(f) conference.  A copy of the memorandum in support of that motion is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 3012808 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2007)

This case is a class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children who are entitled under federal law to medical services that include early and periodic screenings for their physical well being, including their dental and behavioral health needs, along with any necessary follow-up medical services.  Through this action, plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights to such services under various federal statutes.  Defendants in the case include Tennessee state officials who are in charge of the state programs for these services.  To assist it in providing these services, the State enters into contracts with a number of Managed Care Contractors (“MCCs”).  The MCCs are not parties in the suit.

Contemporaneous with the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs requested class certification and the parties agreed to entry of a Consent Decree to remedy plaintiff’s complaints and to certify the class.  Lengthy and complex proceedings followed, including several show cause and contempt hearings.

In the latter half of 2006 and in early 2007, the court held a series of hearings and conferences on the parties’ discovery disputes, and ordered the production of certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) from the defendants.  The court also held that the MCCs’ responsive records and ESI were within the possession, custody, and control of defendants, and required the defendants to obtain such information from the MCCs and produce it as well. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Scott v. Beth Israel Med. Center Inc., 2007 WL 3053351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2007)

Plaintiff is a physician who sued for breach of contract based upon his termination from defendant hospital (“BI”).  Under the contract at issue, BI agreed to pay Dr. Scott $14 million in severance pay if he was terminated without cause.  BI asserted that Dr. Scott was terminated for cause, while Dr. Scott believed he was terminated without cause and without receiving any severance pay.

In August 2005, BI’s counsel wrote Dr. Scott’s counsel stating that BI was in possession of email correspondence between Dr. Scott and his counsel pertaining to Dr. Scott’s dispute with BI, as well as emails written between Dr. Scott and another attorney regarding a separate dispute.  The letter stated that, although no one at BI had read the emails yet, BI believed that any potential privilege attached to the communications had been waived by use of BI’s email system.  Dr. Scott’s counsel responded, asserting that the emails were privileged communications for which there had been no waiver, and requesting their immediate return.  BI refused to return the emails, and the parties called the judge’s court attorney, who instructed BI to provide copies of the emails to Dr. Scott, place copies of the documents into a sealed envelope and bar anyone from reviewing the emails pending a decision by the court.  Thereafter, Dr. Scott filed a motion for a protective order seeking the return of the emails.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sims v. Lakeside School, 2007 WL 2745367 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2007)

In this employment discrimination case, defendant Lakeside sought an order from the court allowing the review of a hard drive image of a laptop computer furnished to plaintiff while he was employed at Lakeside.  After plaintiff’s counsel raised an objection to the imaging of the hard drive, Lakeside agreed not to review its contents, and the parties attempted to resolve the issue on their own.  When the parties were unable to reach agreement, Lakeside moved to compel the review of the image.

The court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part.  The court found that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the laptop that was furnished by Lakeside, including emails he sent and received on his Lakeside email account.  However, the court ruled that web-based emails generated by plaintiff, and any material he created to communicate with his attorney and his spouse, were protected under the attorney-client privilege and the marital communications privilege.

The court explained that Lakeside’s employee manual was “unequivocally clear” in stating that user accounts were the property of Lakeside School, and that they were to be used for academic and administrative purposes only.  “Furthermore, where an employer indicates that it can inspect laptops that it furnished for use of its employees, the employee does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the employer-furnished laptop.”  There was no dispute that plaintiff received a copy of this policy and signed an acknowledgment that he read and reviewed the policy.  Consequently, the court held that plaintiff was on notice that he did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his laptop, or in the emails he sent and received using Lakeside's accounts.

The court viewed web-based emails differently:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2007 WL 3144577 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2007) (Not for Citation)

In this misappropriation of trade secrets case, plaintiff had been granted leave to conduct some expedited discovery prior to the court’s hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  In addition, defendants had been ordered to preserve all evidence, including all information contained on their computer hard drives.

In this order, the court resolved plaintiff’s expedited motion to compel certain defendants to produce “bit-for-bit copies (i.e., mirror images) of all hard drives.”  The parties disagreed about how such inspection and production should proceed, and submitted differing proposed discovery protocols for the court to consider.

The court noted that, for the most part, the parties' protocols were virtually identical, and it appeared that defendants had adopted many of plaintiff's proposed provisions verbatim.  The main point of contention was whether defendants should be permitted an opportunity to review and object to any searches that plaintiff may wish to have the third party expert conduct.  Defendants proposed a two-tier protocol which (a) would permit discovery in areas that defendants deemed presumptively relevant; and (b) would allow plaintiff to request that the expert conduct other searches, subject to an opportunity by defendant to review and object to the proposed search requests.  Defendants expressed concern that plaintiff would propound unduly burdensome or otherwise abusive searches beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26:

At the motion hearing, it was suggested, somewhat facetiously, that Verigy might attempt to request a search for all documents with the letter "A." Indeed, documents submitted on supplemental briefing indicate that Verigy apparently has previously requested a search for all documents containing the letter "V" – a request which strikes this court as being patently overbroad.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gulfstream Worldwide Realty, Inc. v. Phillips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2007 WL 5685128 (D.N.M. Oct. 19, 2007)

In this case, arising out of a claim for a commission on the sale of a semiconductors plant, Phillips Electronics North America (“PENAC”) moved the court for a protective order to allow NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., a non party, to erase and reuse backup tapes that potentially contained information relevant to the lawsuit.  NXP’s backup tapes are implicated by its relationship with Royal Phillips, PENAC’s parent company and the holder of a 19.9% interest in NXP, a company formed following Royal Phillips’s sale of its semiconductor business.  Many of the former employee’s of Royal Phillip’s semiconductor business went to work for NXP.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 2852364 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)

Plaintiffs moved for an interim preservation order because, in their view, defendant eBay had failed to disclose sufficient information regarding the efforts it was making to ensure that relevant ESI was preserved and collected.  Although the parties agreed that eBay would provide a witness to testify under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding its ESI preservation and collection efforts, they disagreed about whether eBay must produce the “document retention notices” (“DRNs”) it sent out to approximately 600 of its employees, and whether eBay must disclose the names and job titles of those approximately 600 employees.

The court ruled that eBay need not produce copies of the DRNs, nor any information about matters contained therein that were privileged or constituted work product.  However, the court ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to inquire into the facts as to what the employees receiving the DRNs had done in response.  The court elaborated:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Benton v. Dlorah, Inc., 2007 WL 2225946 (D. Kan. Aug. 1, 2007)

In this employment discrimination case, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to provide complete responses to requests for production, to produce the hard drive of her personal computer for inspection and copying, and to stop destroying emails and other relevant evidence.  Defendants had requested all communications between plaintiff and defendant National American University or its employees, agents, or students.  Plaintiff produced some documents as part of her initial disclosures and in response to defendants’ discovery requests.  In subsequent discussions regarding the sufficiency of plaintiff’s production, plaintiff's counsel informed defense counsel that plaintiff had deleted email correspondence with her students and could not produce any additional emails beyond what she had already provided in her initial disclosures.  Prompted by concerns about recovering these emails, as well as the discovery responses, defendants requested that she produce the hard drive of her personal home computer to facilitate recovery of the deleted emails by a computer forensics specialist.  Plaintiff refused to produce her computer hard drive without an order of the court.  After further efforts to resolve the discovery dispute, defendants filed a motion to compel.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Auto Club Family Ins. Co. v Ahner, 2007 WL 2480322 (E.D. La., Aug. 29, 2007)

Non-parties Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. and Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. (collectively "Rimkus") filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum served on them by defendants Christopher and Jennifer Ahner (“the Ahners”), and for a protective order.  Rimkus had, on behalf of plaintiff Auto Club Family Insurance Company, investigated the hurricane-related damage to the Ahners' home that was the subject of the lawsuit.  Rimkus agreed to respond to the subpoena by producing a hard copy of its entire file concerning its investigation, but argued that it should not be required to produce its electronically stored information.

The court noted that Rules 26(c) and 45 governed the proceeding, and that, having sought a protective order, Rimkus had a burden to make “’a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements,’ in support of its motion.”  Considering each of Rimkus’s arguments in turn, the court denied the motion to quash the subpoena. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Butler v. Kmart Corp., 2007 WL 2406982 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2007)

In this order, the court considered plaintiff’s motion to compel Kmart to respond to several discovery requests.  The court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part.

Two of the issues considered by the court touched directly on the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  One of plaintiff’s complaints in the motion was the dearth information produced by Kmart in response to a particular set of RFPs.  The court observed that while counsel must make a reasonable effort to ensure their client has produced all the documents responsive to a discovery request, “a party cannot be expected to produce information that no longer exists.”  The court found that the affidavits submitted by Kmart describing their unsuccessful efforts to locate tangible items at various store locations indicated “no evidence that Kmart has failed to make a diligent search,” and declined to order additional searches for tangible items.  However, after noting that Kmart was also obligated to produce ESI relevant to the requests at issue, the court found that Kmart’s efforts in that regard were less clear, and ordered additional steps be undertaken:

It is less clear whether Kmart acted with similar diligence in search its electronically stored information.  In fact, Kmart mentions very little about whether it conducted searches in its various computer systems for documents responsive to the various discovery requests.  Absent some valid objection, it is clear that Kmart must produce electronically stored information, if it exists, responsive to the plaintiff's discovery request.

At this point, without nothing more from Kmart on this matter, the court will compel its production of electronically stored information responsive to plaintiff's various requests.  Once again, Kmart will conduct a thorough search of its computer systems and will provide the plaintiff with any electronically stored information responsive to the request or, alternatively, with responses (and accompanying affidavits, if necessary) demonstrating its diligent search of its computer systems.

(Italics in original.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 650 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

In this opinion, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Barker considered Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based on the failure of defendant AstraZeneca (“AZ”) to timely comply with various discovery obligations.

In April 2007, Plaintiffs had filed a motion to compel completed production of various items listed in the case management order (“CMO”) entered January 2007.  (For a summary of the related opinion discussing the CMO, click here).  The motion was denied without prejudice by the court, to allow the parties to confer “in good faith and in extenso” on the issues raised in the motion to compel.   At the same time, the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the motion, warning the parties:

ANY PARTY WHOSE CONDUCT NECESSITATES THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHOULD EXPECT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR ANY UNREASONABLE OR INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT OR POSITION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THESE MATTERS.

(Capitals and bold in original.)

The evidentiary hearing was ultimately canceled after the parties filed a Joint Statement of Resolved Issues and Notice that a Hearing is Not Required.  Plaintiffs agreed to the Joint Statement and Notice based on AZ’s representations that it would correct the faults described by Plaintiffs in their original motion to compel.  When the corrections were not made, Plaintiffs filed this motion for sanctions.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Peskoff v. Faber, 244 F.R.D. 54 (D.D.C. 2007)

In this opinion, United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola continued attempts to resolve ongoing discovery issues in Plaintiff Jonathan Peskoff’s suit to recover damages for financial injury resulting from Defendant Michael Faber's operation of a venture capital fund, called NextPoint Partners, LP.  Peskoff and Faber were managing members of NextPoint GP, LLC ("NextPoint "), the general partner of the venture capital fund.  Peskoff left NextPoint in January 2004 and filed an action against Faber shortly after.

In discovery, Peskoff sought documents, including email from his time at NextPoint Management. Faber’s initial productions of email and other documents did not include any emails that Peskoff received or authored between mid-2001 and mid-2003.  In a previous ruling centering on the missing data, the court noted that the unresolved issue was whether such emails still existed and could be located, and whether the efforts made to date to locate them had been adequate.  The court had ordered the Defendant to conduct additional searches for any email involving Peskoff, and to submit a sworn statement and provide testimony at an evidentiary hearing on the nature and adequacy of such searches.  (For additional background information, click on the links to see summaries of two previous orders in this case related to this issue, entered July 2006 and February 2007).

In this opinion, the court noted that Faber had failed to appear at the subsequent evidentiary hearing, and that this failure to comply with the court’s previous order would be construed against him.  The court then relied on the testimony made by others at the hearing, and on other available information, and concluded that the production to date raised many questions regarding its completion and the sufficiency of the searches performed.  The court also concluded that any additional searches would require additional resources beyond the tools available to NextPoint.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-CV-1958-B (BLM), United States District Court for the Southern District of California

The lawyers who represented Qualcomm in this unsuccessful patent litigation, who on August 13, 2007 were ordered to appear today to show cause (“OSC”) why sanctions should not be imposed against them for failure to comply with the Court’s orders, will not be appearing in court today after all.  Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major has granted the lawyers’ applications to extend the August 22, 2007 filing date for declarations regarding the imposition of sanctions and the August 29, 2007 OSC hearing date.  In their applications, the lawyers acknowledged that the “OSC raises complex and very serious issues that potentially impact the legal careers of the lawyers who are the subject of the OSC,” and explained that additional time was needed to get the lawyers’ newly-hired attorneys up to speed on the record and the issues, and adequately prepare for the OSC.  Finding that good cause was shown, the Court granted the applications and extended the deadline for filing declarations to Friday, September 21, 2007, and moved the hearing date to Friday, October 12, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

In related rulings, Magistrate Judge Major agreed to allow the lawyers to be represented by their own counsel for purposes of responding to the OSC.  The HellerErhman lawyers will be represented by Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP of San Diego, and the lawyers from Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder will be represented by Shartsis Friese LLP of San Francisco. 

As noted in our August 13, 2007 post, the Order to Show Cause was issued days after District Court Judge Rudi M. Brewster entered a 54-page Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver.  There, the District Judge found “by clear and convincing evidence that Qualcomm[’s] counsel participated in an organized program of litigation misconduct and concealment throughout discovery, trial, and post-trial before new counsel took over lead role in the case on April 27, 2007.”  Among other things, the Court highlighted Qualcomm’s production of over 200,000 pages of highly relevant emails and electronic documents four months post-trial.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

In this opinion, the district court denied defendants’ motion for review of a prior discovery order that required defendants to begin preserving and subsequently produce certain data held in the random access memory (RAM) of defendants’ computer servers.  The court noted that, at the heart of defendants' motion for review was a question of first impression:  Is the information held in a computer's random access memory (RAM) "electronically stored information" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34?  The court concluded that it is: 

Defendants and amici seek to engraft on the definition of “stored” an additional requirement, that the information be not just stored, but stored “for later retrieval.”  They argue that “electronically stored information” cannot include information held in RAM because the period of storage, which may be as much as six hours, is too temporary.  The Court finds this interpretation of “stored” unsupported by the text of the Rule, the accompanying commentary of its drafters, or Ninth Circuit precedent involving RAM.  The Court holds that data stored in RAM, however temporarily, is electronically stored information subject to discovery under the circumstances of the instant case.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 2007 WL 2085358 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2007)

Healthcare Advocates was the plaintiff in an earlier lawsuit that asserted claims for trademark infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets against a competitor.  The Harding firm represented the defendants in that lawsuit, which was dismissed on summary judgment.  This civil action arose out of events that occurred in the pre-discovery phase of the underlying litigation.

After receiving the complaint, the Harding firm investigated the facts behind the allegations.  Employees of the Harding firm accessed a website operated by the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), and viewed archived screenshots of Healthcare Advocates' website via a tool contained on Internet Archive's website called the Wayback Machine.  The Wayback Machine allowed the Harding firm to see what Healthcare Advocates' public website looked like prior to the date the complaint was filed in the underlying litigation.  Viewing the content that Healthcare Advocates had included on its public website in the past was very useful to the Harding firm in assessing the merits of the claims brought against their clients.  The Harding firm printed copies of each archived screenshot of Healthcare Advocates' public website that they viewed via the Wayback Machine, and used the images used during the course of the underlying litigation.  However, the Harding firm did not actively save any of the screenshots they viewed onto their computer hard drives.

Healthcare Advocates later sued the Harding firm, claiming among other things that the firm had infringed on its copyright rights by viewing and printing copies of the archived images of the Healthcare Advocates' web pages, by unknowingly saving copies of these web pages in temporary files known as caches, and by distributing the images to their co-counsel in the underlying litigation.  It further alleged that the Harding firm was guilty of “hacking.”

In this opinion, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Harding firm’s infringing use was excusable under the fair use doctrine.  The court further rejected Healthcare Advocates’ request for spoliation sanctions based on defendant’s failure to preserve the temporary cache files.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Doe v. Norwalk Community College, 2007 WL 2066497 (D. Conn. July 16, 2007)

In this case, plaintiff Jane Doe sued Norwalk Community College ("NCC") and Ronald Masi claiming she was sexually assaulted by Masi, a former professor at the college.  Doe filed her complaint in November 2004, and in March 2006, Doe moved to compel the inspection of certain electronic records possessed by NCC.  The court granted the motion in July 2006, and permitted plaintiff’s expert to inspect certain NCC computers.  Based upon her expert's findings, Doe moved for sanctions, seeking an adverse inference with regard to electronic files which she claimed the defendants destroyed.

Specifically, Doe claimed that the hard drives of key witnesses had been scrubbed or completely wiped of data.  Further, her expert found inconsistencies in the mailboxes of four individuals that suggested to him that data had been altered, destroyed or filtered.  For example, one witness’s PST file contained no Deleted Items and only one Sent Item and the Inbox and Sent Items contained data starting August 2004, even though other activity was present starting in 2002.  In addition, Doe presented evidence that the retention policy issued by the State Library, which provided for a two-year retention with respect to electronic correspondence, governed NCC, and that this policy was not followed with respect to the hard drives of the computers of faculty members who left the college. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

Pipefitters Local No. 636 Pension Fund v. Mercer Human Res. Consulting, Inc., 2007 WL 2080365 (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2007)

In this brief order on plaintiffs’ objections to an amended scheduling order entered by the magistrate judge, the district court struck that portion of the amended scheduling order shifting the costs of electronic discovery to plaintiffs:

Without a motion pending, the Magistrate Judge ordered that plaintiffs would be required to pay for restoring electronic data, if such was sought by them from defendant.  Under the electronically stored information amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B), the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  The court may order discovery if the requesting party shows good cause, but may specify conditions for the discovery.  Due to the lack of a record it is not apparent that the Magistrate Judge engaged in the proper analysis before shifting the cost of discovery to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Magistrate's order as it pertains to the costs of electronically stored information is GRANTED.  If the same issue is raised by motion, the analysis set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B) will control the outcome.

• Email This
• Print

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2007 WL 1837133 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007)

In this securities case, the parties had entered into a protective order which provided, among other things, that the inadvertent production of purportedly privileged documents would not operate as a waiver of any applicable privilege.  In August 2006, plaintiff produced an April 25, 2003 email and attached memorandum sent from an executive of plaintiff Kingsway to Kingsway's counsel as part of a production of electronic documents.  In November 2006, defendant John Dore attached a copy of the April 25, 2003 email to a motion for reconsideration of a decision denying summary judgment in a related action pending in Illinois state court.  Four days later, plaintiff submitted a letter to the District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the return of all copies of the April 25, 2003 email on the ground that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege and had been produced inadvertently.  Plaintiff filed the December 4, 2006 letter to the court under seal.  However, plaintiff attached a copy of the April 25, 2003 email to the service copies of the December 4, 2006 letter, thereby disclosing the contents of the email and the attachment to the defendants once again.

The court thereafter directed all defendants, including Dore, to return all copies of the disputed email, to destroy any documents disclosing its contents, to use best efforts to retrieve any such documents filed with any court, and to make no use of the email pending further order of the court. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

United Med. Supply Co., Inc. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 257 (2007)

In this decision, the United States Court of Federal Claims imposed sanctions against the United States based upon its “reckless disregard of its duty to preserve relevant evidence.”  The court opened its lengthy opinion and order with the following passage:

“One man's trash is another man's treasure.”

Aside perhaps from perjury, no act serves to threaten the integrity of the judicial process more than the spoliation of evidence.  Our adversarial process is designed to tolerate human failings – erring judges can be reversed, uncooperative counsel can be shepherded, and recalcitrant witnesses compelled to testify.  But, when critical documents go missing, judges and litigants alike descend into a world of ad hocery and half measures – and our civil justice system suffers.

To guard against this, each party in litigation is solemnly bound to preserve potentially relevant evidence.  In this government contract case, defendant violated that duty not once or twice—but repeatedly, over many years, and in sundry ways, leading to the destruction of many admittedly relevant documents.  Most disturbingly, some of these documents were destroyed even after the court conducted its first spoliation hearing.  While defendant apologizes profusely for what it claims is the “negligence” of some of its employees and for making repeated misstatements to the court as to the steps that were being taken to prevent spoliation, it, nonetheless, asseverates that the court should not—indeed, cannot—impose spoliation sanctions because defendant did not proceed in bad faith.  While defendant may be wrong in asserting that it acted in good faith, it most certainly is wrong in thinking that it can recklessly disregard its obligations to preserve evidence without legal consequence.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Valdez v. Town of Brookhaven, 2007 WL 1988792 (E.D.N.Y. July 5, 2007)

In this discrimination case, the court decided a number of discovery issues, including plaintiffs' request that the defendants be directed to send out a litigation hold to the relevant Town employees to preserve records.  Denying the request, the court provided a brief explanation:

[T]he plaintiffs request that the court direct defense counsel to send out a litigation hold to the relevant Town employees to preserve records as well as to conduct a good faith investigation into what documents (electronic or otherwise) may have already been destroyed.  The apparent basis for this request is a conversation during which defense counsel reportedly advised that the "Town has a history of terrible record keeping."  Defense counsel denies any such conversation occurred.  The law is clear that there is an obligation to preserve evidence "when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation", see Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir. 2001); Kronish v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998)).  To the extent, however, plaintiffs seek a preservation order that request is denied.  Preservation orders are burdensome and expensive and in the absence of a clear need should not be lightly entered.  See, e.g., Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363, 370-71 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 2007 WL 1739666 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2007)

The perils of e-discovery once again made headlines last month – this time in connection with the insurance coverage battles resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.  On June 18, United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, for the Southern District of New York, sanctioned Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) and its counsel, the law firms of Wiley Rein LLP and Coughlin Duffy LLP, $1.25 million upon finding that Zurich (i) asserted unsupported defenses, (ii) deleted electronic evidence, and (iii) delayed the production of a 62-page insurance policy (“the 9/11 document”) and other relevant documents.

At the heart of this complex insurance coverage action is the question whether the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”) and Westfield Corporation, Inc. (“Westfield”) are named insureds under a general liability policy issued to World Trade Center Properties LLP (“WTCP”).  Zurich alleged that they were not.  Zurich ultimately changed its position, however, when it produced documents that proved otherwise, long after those documents were first requested.  These critical documents were in Zurich’s counsel’s possession for almost three years before they were produced.  Concerned about the appearance of pleading and discovery abuses, the Court permitted the Port Authority and Westfield to seek sanctions under Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 1630875 (N.D. Ga. June 4, 2007)

The court in this wrongful death case had previously held a hearing on outstanding discovery issues, and had directed each party to submit a proposed protocol to govern electronic discovery in the case.  Based on the parties' filings, their representations during the hearing, as well as their submissions of electronic discovery protocols, the court entered this order resolving a variety of discovery disputes.

On the subject of electronic discovery, the court noted that a number of issues had arisen with respect to Taser's search of electronic databases of internal communications.  In particular, the parties substantially disagreed about the manner in which the searches for responsive documents contained within these databases were to be performed.  The disagreement focused in large part on the timing of that production, the specific search terms to be used, and the extent to which plaintiffs would be allowed to participate in the search process.

Plaintiffs, for their part, requested that they be permitted to actively participate in the search process at the Taser facility.  Under plaintiffs' proposal, Taser would make a computer with multiple screens available at its facilities, where plaintiffs' counsel would appear and provide search requests to the Taser representative actually performing the database searches.  The results of each of plaintiffs' requested searches would be immediately reviewed for privilege, and plaintiffs would then be provided access to any documents returned and to which no privilege objection was asserted.

Defendants adamantly opposed plaintiffs' proposal, contending that plaintiffs' counsel need not be present at Taser's facilities, that their presence would both substantially hinder Taser's ongoing business activities and risk the disclosure of privileged information.  Taser instead proposed that search terms be exchanged between the parties by email.  Taser would then perform the searches using the stated terms, and report the number of documents retrieved to plaintiffs, who would then have the opportunity to either accept the search or propose different search terms.  If both parties accepted a given search, Taser would then review the documents produced for privilege and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents.  If, however, the parties disputed whether a given search was acceptable, then either could apply to the court for review, and all searches would cease until the court rendered a decision. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2007 WL 1848665 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2007)

In this trademark litigation, Google sought terminating, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions based on the alleged failure of defendant American Blind to preserve, collect, and produce evidence.  Google's motion was premised on two types of alleged misconduct:  First, Google contended that American Blind made inadequate efforts to preserve, collect, and produce relevant evidence.  Second, Google contended that in May of 2006, American Blind's founder and CEO, Steve Katzman, intentionally destroyed evidence when he “voluntarily resigned” from his position and erased electronic data from certain computers.

Google served American Blind with summons and the complaint in this action seeking declaratory relief in December of 2003.  The presiding judge had previously ruled that a justiciable controversy arose between the parties no later June of 2002, when counsel for American Blind sent Google a “cease and desist” letter that portended litigation.  Thus, the court found that American Blind's duty to preserve relevant evidence arose no later than December of 2003, and likely arose some eighteen months earlier. American Blind did not argue to the contrary.

With respect to the first basis for the motion, Google made a factual showing that: Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a June 19, 2007 article in the New York Law Journal (subscription required), and a June 27, 2007 article appearing on www.law.com, K&L Gates partner Kelly D. Talcott writes:

A recent e-discovery decision from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California provides an opportunity to reflect a bit on the permanence of storage media.  It has also inspired debate as to when temporarily stored information becomes "electronically stored information" that needs to be preserved and, where relevant, produced in response to discovery requests.

The May 27, 2007, order directs defendants in an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit to collect and produce information stored in the random-access memory of their servers.

Depending on the ideological and topical bent of the commentator, this decision (a) heralds a substantial victory in the war against copyright infringement; (b) sounds the death knell for Internet user privacy, or (c) could require anyone involved in a lawsuit to turn over information stored by their computers' RAM hardware.  Closer inspection of the federal magistrate judge's decision reveals the correct answer is probably (d) none of the above.

The article relates to the case of Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, CV 06-1093 FMC (JCx), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

For those interested in reading the Court's now-unsealed order that is the subject of the article, it is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Scotts Co. LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1723509 (S.D. Ohio June 12, 2007)

In this case, plaintiff asked the court to enter a discovery order to "ensure the production of all electronically stored information in an acceptable format as required by law and the most recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."  Plaintiff also sought to compel the re-production of ESI previously produced by defendant in hard copy form, and to compel the production of deleted documents.

Forensic Search 
Plaintiff first contended that, pursuant to the 2006 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, it was entitled to an order that would require defendant to allow a forensic expert to search defendant's computer systems, network servers and databases and would require defendant to provide back up tapes of certain information systems.  Plaintiff offered to pay the cost of the forensic expert and to allow defendant ten days to review the data for privilege before any production was made.  Defendant objected, arguing that the 2006 amendments required no such discovery order as a matter of course.  The court agreed with defendant, and observed:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 2007 WL 1655757 (E.D. Mo. June 5, 2007)

This order constitutes the parties’ Agreed Order Regarding Preservation of Communications, Documents, Electronic Data, and Other Tangible Items, intended to govern the parties’ preservation efforts in these consolidated MDL proceedings.  The Agreed Order contains two parts: a lengthy definitional section and a section setting out specific preservation obligations.  The latter section provides that the preservation obligations set forth in the Order apply to currently-existing evidence within the parties' possession, custody, or control, as well as evidence "generated, produced, or otherwise created in the future during the pendency of this Action until an agreement can be reached among the Parties regarding a cutoff date.”  It further provides:  “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, persons may generate business documents without preserving dictation, drafts, interim versions or other temporary compilations of information if such documents would not have been preserved in the ordinary course of business.” 

The Agreed Order further provides:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 2007 WL 1585452 (D.D.C. June 1, 2007)

In this case, disabled plaintiffs claimed that WMATA failed to provide adequate paratransit services through the MetroAccess program and that the service provided was materially inferior to the services available to people without disabilities.  Discovery was heavily litigated, and Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola addressed several discovery motions in this opinion, one of which related to the production of email from backup tapes.

Specifically, plaintiffs sought an order requiring WMATA to produce backup tapes of certain electronic documents written and received since the filing of the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs argued that WMATA had failed to properly instruct employees to retain potentially responsive electronic documents and therefore should pay to create the backup tapes.  “Remarkably, although the complaint in this case was filed on March 25, 2004, WMATA acknowledges it did nothing to stop its email system from obliterating all emails after sixty days until, at the earliest, June of 2006.”  WMATA presented testimony that its email system was programmed with an automatic deletion feature that deleted any email after it had been in existence for sixty days, without regard to whether the email was unread, in a folder that the sender or recipient has created, or in the user's "Sent" or "Trash" folders.  Further, while the user could defeat the feature by archiving the email, i.e., placing it in a location of the user's choosing in an encrypted format, the majority of WMATA employees apparently did not do this.  “As a result, with the exception of three individuals, there has been a universal purging of all possibly relevant and discoverable emails every sixty days at least since the complaint was filed three years ago.” Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Calyon v. Mizuho Secs. USA Inc., 2007 WL 1468889 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2007)

This case involved claims against former employees (the “Individual Defendants”) and their new employer for the misappropriation of confidential business information.  According to Calyon, the Individual Defendants used email and small, hand-held computer storage devices to remove vast quantities of Calyon’s business data and documents.  Plaintiff and the Individual Defendants reached an agreement to preserve the hard drives of the Individual Defendants’ personal computers and computer storage devices by creating “mirror images” of them.  However, the parties were unable to reach agreement on the protocol for reviewing the mirror images, and sought the court’s assistance.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Guy Chem. Co. v. Romaco AG, 2007 WL 1521468 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2007)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff Guy Chemical sought damages for, among other things, the loss of business from third parties.  Defendant Romaco subpoenaed records from ABRO Industries, Inc., a customer of plaintiff, to learn how much of ABRO’s business plaintiff had lost.  Specifically, Romaco sought correspondence, orders, cancelled orders, or orders that could not be filled between Guy Chemical and ABRO.  Apparently, most of the requested information was stored electronically by ABRO.  ABRO informed Romaco that it used an outside computer firm to handle its electronic data, and that it would have to determine how to search for the records.  ABRO subsequently advised Romaco that the final cost for searching and producing the requested records would be $7,200.  ABRO did not object to producing the material sought, but requested that Romaco pay the cost of production.  Romaco moved to compel, arguing that ABRO was being unreasonable by requiring payment for the cost of production as a condition precedent to production.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 486 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Iowa 2007)

Although the parties settled their respective claims, the court retained jurisdiction over the question of whether or not sanctions should be imposed upon the City for the destruction, during the pendency of litigation, of recordings of City Council closed sessions concerning the ordinances challenged in the case.  The court held a conference on the matter and received further information about changes made to the City's policy regarding retention of recordings of closed sessions of the City Council.

The court began its analysis by remarking:

A first year law student should have--and most would have--known that a party must retain documents or records that are likely to be relevant in pending litigation.  The City's claim that it was simply following state law in destroying key evidence is laughable and frivolous.  No state or federal statute, rule, or common law allows a party to destroy critical evidence during the pendency of litigation, and the City policy that permitted destruction of certain documents after a specified period of time certainly did not require destruction of such documents.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

O'Bar v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)

This is a putative class action in which the plaintiffs allege they were discriminated against because they were not minorities or females.  Finding that plaintiffs were entitled to limited precertification discovery, the court ordered the parties, pursuant to Rule 26(f), to jointly prepare and submit to the court a specific and detailed precertification discovery plan.  Based upon the previous disputes between the parties, the court stated it anticipated issues arising as to the discovery of data through various types of computer programs maintained by defendant.  Thus, in order to assist the parties in conducting discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”), the court set out detailed guidelines that would govern the parties.  The guidelines were adapted from the “Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information” set forth by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The court encouraged the parties to discuss the following subjects, in preparing the precertification discovery plan:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)

In this case, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment but failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 56 that they support their motions with admissible evidence.  Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm denied both motions without prejudice to allow resubmission with proper evidentiary support.  In this lengthy memorandum opinion, Magistrate Judge Grimm remarks that, although cases abound regarding the discoverability of electronic records, research failed to locate a comprehensive analysis of the many interrelated evidentiary issues associated with electronic evidence.  “Given the pervasiveness today of electronically prepared and stored records, as opposed to the manually prepared records of the past, counsel must be prepared to recognize and appropriately deal with the evidentiary issues associated with the admissibility of electronically generated and stored evidence.”  Magistrate Judge Grimm describes five distinct but interrelated evidentiary issues that govern whether electronic evidence will be admitted into evidence at trial or accepted as an exhibit in summary judgment practice, and counsels:

Although each of these rules may not apply to every exhibit offered, as was the case here, each still must be considered in evaluating how to secure the admissibility of electronic evidence to support claims and defenses.  Because it can be expected that electronic evidence will constitute much, if not most, of the evidence used in future motions practice or at trial, counsel should know how to get it right on the first try.  The Court hopes that the explanation provided in this memorandum order will assist in that endeavor.

View the full opinion on the court’s website, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 2007 WL 1246200 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2007)

This litigation arose from the City of Topeka's decision to deny plaintiff’s request for conditional use permits.  Plaintiff propounded interrogatories seeking information related to the City’s decision on the permits, specifically requesting information about, among other things:  “Each and every communication related to the application expressed in instant messages, either saved on a data recording medium or not saved.”  In response, the City referred plaintiff to certain documents that had been produced.  Plaintiff asserted that the documents did not sufficiently respond to the interrogatory, and argued that the City failed to identify specific emails or ex parte electronic communications, resulting in an incomplete discovery response.  Plaintiff moved to compel further responses.  The City countered that:  (1) it possessed no additional documents or information responsive to the requests, and (2) the requests were unduly burdensome.  The court sided with the City on both arguments, and denied the motion to compel.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wells v. Xpedx, 2007 WL 1200955 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007)

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff sought the production of email of seven Xpedx employees during various time periods.  Plaintiff contended that defendant implemented a new email deletion policy in 2003, under which emails were deleted within 90 days of creation, unless designated for retention.  Plaintiff asserted that, under defendant's policy, an email "that is automatically deleted by the system can not be restored except with the expressed consent of a member of the company's legal or tax departments."  Plaintiff further contended that defendant's archive system, "legal hold" folders, and defendant's permanent back-up computer system may contain copies of the requested emails.  Thus, plaintiff sought permission to take the deposition of defendant's corporate representative for information technology regarding defendant's email deletion policy and procedures for retrieving deleted emails.  Plaintiff argued that this would allow the parties to determine the existence of deleted emails and if defendant destroyed any evidence relating to plaintiff's claims.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 2007 WL 1189451 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2007)

In this case, Greyhound Lines, Inc. sued Robert Wade and Archway Cookies, LLC (collectively Archway).  In August 2000, an Archway truck driven by Wade rear-ended a Greyhound bus on Interstate 80 in Nebraska.  After a bench trial, the district court apportioned fault at 85 percent to Archway and 15 percent to Greyhound.  Archway appealed, asserting, among other things, that the court erred in refusing to impose sanctions for alleged spoliation of electronic data. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 2007 WL 1160012 (D. Colo. Apr. 19, 2007)

In this brief order, the court granted defendant’s motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to produce, among other things, certain plant data “in electronic format” and “all electronic documents, including the archived or back-up emails and electronic files for the Plaintiff's personnel involved with the Project who are specifically identified in [defendant’s] Requests for Production related to the processes and operation of the Plant.”

The case involved claims for breach of a procurement contract for failure to meet the guaranteed specifications, and counter-claims seeking declaratory judgment relief related the contract.  Plaintiff had argued that the requested discovery was irrelevant, overly broad, overly burdensome, and costly.  The court’s analysis was short -- it simply found that the requested discovery as outlined in the motion was relevant to the issues pending before the court and was discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

World Courier v. Barone, 2007 WL 1119196 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007)

In this misappropriation of trade secrets case, plaintiff moved for sanctions for spoliation of evidence based upon the admitted destruction of a hard drive containing a copy of plaintiff’s data by defendant Barone's husband, Jay Barone.  Plaintiff sought an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions consisting of compensation for the time and expense involved in the forensic examination of computer files, the time and costs associated with developing deposition testimony and document discovery, and attorney's fees associated with litigating the motion.  The court granted in part and deferred in part the motion.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that they could not be sanctioned because the spoliator, Mr. Barone, was not a party to the action.  The court stated that the argument lacked merit because it overlooked a party’s affirmative duty to preserve evidence.  The court stated the duty to preserve extends to evidence not directly within the party's custody or control so long as the party has access to or indirect control over such evidence.  The court found:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Teague v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 1041191 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2007)

In this employment litigation, defendant had asserted as an affirmative defense plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages.  During discovery, it was revealed that plaintiff owned a home computer from December 1995 until August 2004, which plaintiff had used to conduct her entire on-line job search after leaving defendant’s employ, including researching job opportunities on the Internet, submitting on-line employment applications, and exchanging emails with prospective employers.  Plaintiff also used the computer to send and receive emails regarding her termination and her claims of gender discrimination.  The computer was discarded approximately one year after plaintiff had retained regarding her prospective claims and after she filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Plaintiff claimed that she discarded the computer because it "crashed.”  Plaintiff admitted that she never took the computer to any type of computer professional to see if it could be repaired.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Townsend, 2007 WL 1002317 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2007)

In this case, the University of Pittsburgh alleged that defendants misappropriated the University's rights and interests in valuable medical scanning technology that the University alleged was developed collaboratively at its campus over the course of several years.  In addition to Daubert motions, defendants moved the court for an excluding the testimony of plaintiff’s proposed experts based on spoliation of evidence.  Specifically, defendants alleged that the experts, along with plaintiff’s counsel, admittedly destroyed copies of emails and draft expert reports.  Defendants argued that, as a result of the spoliation, they were unfairly prejudiced and denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as to counsel’s contributions to their expert reports.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Veeco Instruments, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 983987 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2007)

In this securities class action, defendants resisted lead plaintiff's motion to compel production of email and other non-privileged documents.  Defendants argued that restoring the backup tapes and searches involved would be extraordinarily burdensome and costly, and that such costs should be shifted to plaintiff.  The court observed that, “[s]urprisingly,” the parties had not entered into an agreed protocol for electronic discovery, nor had they discussed the issue of searching backup tapes.  It also found that, given the lack of discussion on the subject, it would be unreasonable for plaintiff to assume that backup tapes were being searched.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Georgia Dept. of Agric. v. Griffin Ind., 2007 WL 805795 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2007)

In this case, Griffin Industries had sought records from the Georgia Department of Agriculture relating to its facilities’ emissions and odor issues, including relevant emails.  The Department produced documents, but advised that it did not “archive” its emails.  It stated that the only possible source of such information was a series of emergency computer backup tapes, which would be made available.  The parties then corresponded about taking the tapes out of daily backup circulation to avoid erasing data, and about who would pay for replacement tapes necessary to keep the Department’s backup procedures operational.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007)

Plaintiffs in this litigation sued the city of Monte Sereno and several city employees for civil rights violations and other torts.  Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that certain city employees had sent plaintiffs an anonymous, threatening letter that included a newspaper article downloaded from the Internet.  One city employee (Rice) subsequently admitted to authoring and sending the threatening letter from her workstation at City Hall.  Although Rice indicated that she wrote the letter at her own direction without telling anyone about it, plaintiffs contended that Rice wrote the letter at the direction of other city employees, including the city manager (Loventhal).  To explore this allegation, plaintiffs moved to compel inspection of the city’s computers, printers and backup tapes.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Capitano v. Ford Motor Co., 831 N.Y.S.2d 687 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

In this product liability case, plaintiffs sought production of defendant’s “suspension orders,” also known as "litigation hold notices."  Plaintiffs argued that the suspension orders should be produced in light of the fact that Ford was unable to produce certain documents.  Plaintiffs contended that, with access to the suspension orders, they would be able to determine if the documents in question were intentionally or negligently destroyed, or perhaps secure information which may lead to the discovery of the missing documents.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bolton v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 756644 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2007)

This is an age discrimination case brought by thirteen individual plaintiffs, based upon a corporate reduction-in-force ("RIF") by defendants.  In this decision, the court ruled upon plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to produce certain documents, including databases and spreadsheets.  Among other objections, defendants argued that plaintiffs’ persistent demand for information in “native format” and metadata was troubling.  Defendants claimed that the phrase “native format,” as used by plaintiffs, was a misnomer, and in reality it simply meant that “if a document was created in an Excel software program, then it should be produced in Excel format.”  Defendants argued that this type of production implicated issues related to metadata, and that accessing electronic information to produce it in native format may actually destroy information that might otherwise be gleaned from metadata.  In addition, defendants argued that production of metadata would reveal privileged information, and would not be relevant to plaintiffs’ claims.  Finally, defendants argued that it would be difficult and time-consuming to devise a manner of production that would ensure that the information appeared in the same state it existed at the time the document was originally utilized, or to ensure active cells were not changed post-production.  They claimed the burden and risk associated with native production far surpassed the benefits, which were minimal, if any, and which were unarticulated by plaintiffs.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

AAB Joint Venture v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 432 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

In this construction litigation involving claims for additional compensation based on differing site conditions, plaintiff moved to compel discovery.  Plaintiff noted that defendant had identified in its discovery responses numerous individuals who were active in the review of the project design, and who were known to have generated email related to the subject matter of the litigation.  However, defendant had produced few if any emails from these individuals, and for the six individuals for whom emails were produced, there were gaps in the production.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

School-Link Techs., Inc. v. Applied Res., Inc., 2007 WL 708213 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2007)

In this contract case, plaintiff sought entry of judgment and other sanctions based upon defendant's failure to implement a litigation hold to preserve relevant documents in the custody of one of its key employees, and its alleged failure to search for and produce responsive documents. Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse granted the motion in part.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O' Lakes, Inc., 2007 WL 684001 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2007)

In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought various forms of relief for defendants’ alleged discovery violations, including the appointment of a special master (at defendants' expense) who would be charged with evaluating defendants’ discovery production efforts and, if necessary, directing “completion of full and thorough efforts to locate and produce all documentation in all forms available.” Plaintiff also sought additional depositions on the issue of spoliation and attorneys fees and costs, among other things. The court denied most of the requests, but concluded that a $5,000 monetary sanction was appropriate based upon defendants’ failure to preserve the hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of its discovery production.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Peskoff v. Faber, 240 F.R.D. 26 (D.D.C. 2007)

A previous e-discovery order in this case dated July 11, 2006, was summarized here. At that time, the parties had disagreed about whether certain additional emails existed. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola had explained that the requested emails, “if they exist, could be located in one or more of several places: (1) Peskoff’s NextPoint Management email account; (2) the email accounts of other employees, agents, officers and representatives of the NextPoint entities; (3) the hard drive of Peskoff’s computer or any other depository for NextPoint emails, searchable with key words; (4) other places within Peskoff’s computer, such as its ‘slack space,’ searchable with the help of a computer forensic technologies; and (5) backup tapes of Mintz Levin’s servers.” In the previous order, the court had ordered defendant to submit an affidavit describing in detail the nature and scope of its search for responsive electronically stored information.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, 2007 WL 442387 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2007)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that its former employees improperly used plaintiff's computers, confidential information and trade secrets to divert business from plaintiff to defendants. In discovery, the parties disputed how and under what circumstances materials on hard drives in defendants' possession would be produced to plaintiff. Plaintiff sought to use a mirror or digital imaging method, in which a digital image of the hard drives would be created and turned over to a third party forensic computer expert of plaintiff's choosing, who would then search the image for relevant information. Plaintiff further proposed that, to avoid any disclosure of privileged information, defendants should provide a privilege log to plaintiff's third party forensic expert, and that the forensics expert would be bound not to disclose any privileged information provided to him. Defendants, on the other hand, proposed that they create digital image of the hard drives in question and search that image using terms that plaintiff provided and defendants agreed upon. Defendants would then produce the results of the search to plaintiff, save any confidential or privileged information. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 2007 WL 333987 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2007)

In this order, District Court Judge David S. Doty concluded that a discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The January 4, 2007 discovery order required, among other things, that defendants produce responsive documents by February 2, 2007. Defendants had argued that, while certain documents that were responsive existed, the cost to retrieve them from an electronic archive may be prohibitive. The magistrate judge determined that defendants had not met their burden to establish that the information sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B):

Defendants offer no proof, aside from conclusory statements, about the cost to obtain documents from electronic archives. So this concern cannot shield the defendants from discovery here.

(January 4, 2007 Order, at p. 12.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc., 2007 WL 329290 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2007 (Unpublished)

In this case, plaintiff claimed that it inadvertently produced over 500 privileged emails that had been deleted from a single Lotus Notes DVD, but were nonetheless printed and produced by its outside e-discovery vendor. According to plaintiff, the privileged emails (and other non-responsive emails) had been segregated into subfolders, and these subfolders had been deleted prior to the submission of the DVD to a vendor for processing. Plaintiff blamed this inadvertent production on the fact that in the Lotus Notes application (as distinguished from Microsoft Outlook and other email platforms), even though emails had been moved and segregated into separately labeled subfolders, and said folders subsequently deleted, a copy of these emails still remained in the larger folder structure. As such, when Applied Discovery converted the emails from their native form into single page image files, the emails which plaintiff had allegedly segregated into a “privileged” subfolder, and subsequently deleted, actually remained in the larger folder structure, and were thus produced to the defendant.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 496716 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2007)

 

In this case, plaintiff alleged that defendants improperly used confidential information while in plaintiff’s employ to sabotage plaintiff’s business relationships.  Defendants asserted that plaintiff's lost sales were due to plaintiff's own mismanagement and not defendants' alleged misconduct.  Defendants requested all plaintiff's documents and communications concerning the television stand business made during the relevant period, and identified six individuals who may have responsive information.  Plaintiff argued that the request was unduly broad and overly burdensome and that the documents, the majority of which were electronically stored, numbered in the hundreds of thousands.  Defendants moved to compel production of:  (1) its internal communications and documents regarding plaintiff's original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) television stand business, its customers, and its management for the period from October 2005 through March 2006; (2) plaintiff's employees' communications with customers regarding the OEM television stand business for the same period; and (3) documents relating to plaintiff's 2006 Consumer Electronics show presentations.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 214320 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007)

Previously, Chief District Judge John W. Lungstrum had remanded this matter to the Magistrate Judge for factual findings concerning and an explanation of the reasons for the denial of plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. This opinion sets out Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse’s explanation of why he denied plaintiffs' motion to the extent it sought to impose sanctions upon defendant for its alleged failure to produce all spreadsheet materials in native format, its failure to timely produce the spreadsheet materials that were produced, and its conduct in re-producing spreadsheet materials in non-native format that had already been produced in native format.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 184889 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007)

This litigation involved claims against a former employee for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had removed proprietary information from his company-provided laptop in connection with his November 2003 departure, and then used that information after he began working for a competitor (“Southeast”). Plaintiff sought an order compelling defendant to produce a laptop provided to defendant by Southeast in December 2005 or January 2006 and a personal computer hard drive which defendant kept at his residence. Plaintiff argued that the computers were likely to have evidence of defendant’s alleged violation of the CFAA as the computers were the most likely places where he would have downloaded, pasted, transmitted, or otherwise deposited the alleged pilfered computer data.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Phillips v. Netblue, Inc., 2007 WL 174459 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007)

In this action involving alleged violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornographic and Marketing (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003, defendants moved for dismissal based upon plaintiff’s alleged failure to preserve evidence.  United States District Judge Samuel Conti started by explaining the nature of the evidence at issue:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 241344 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007)

 

In this opinion, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck granted plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and awarded plaintiffs their costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the sanctions motion and the additional discovery costs caused by defendant NTL Europe's conduct.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Miller v. Holzmann, 2007 WL 172327 (D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2007)

In this decision, Magistrate Judge John H. Facciola recommended that defense motions for dismissal as a sanction for the government’s alleged discovery abuses be denied. One event that was cited as partial support for the motions was the destruction of a government file in accordance with the pertinent National Archives and Administration Act schedule. The file contained a complete copy of materials that had been gathered in response to a related FOIA request, including materials that were exempt from production under FOIA. The employee who destroyed the file explained that she was not aware that the lawsuit or any other litigation was pending and that she would not have destroyed the file had she known it was.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 219989 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)

In this opinion, the district court adopted the report and recommendations of the magistrate judge relating to the parties’ joint motion for entry of case management orders. The modified case management order entered by the court contained a number of provisions relating to electronic discovery, including one that allowed plaintiffs to conduct information interviews of knowledgeable AstraZeneca-employed IT persons about some 14 categories of databases and how information could potentially be produced or extracted from them. One of the categories included databases of “instant message, voicemail, discussion forum and prior website page databases, transcripts and recovery.”
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Vaccarello, 2007 WL 169628 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2007)

Plaintiff sued two former employees who left to form a competing business (“ARS”), alleging among other things that defendants undertook to cover up their actions by destroying information stored on plaintiff’s computers. In discovery, plaintiff sought and moved to compel the hard drive of any computer used by the defendants for ARS or Balfour Beatty business purposes at any time during 2005 and 2006. The defendants objected on confidentiality grounds to producing the hard drives used for ARS and stated that they did not have the hard drive they used for Balfour Beatty business. Plaintiff argued that the parties’ protective order should provide sufficient protection to any confidential information, and that defendants' objections based on confidentiality should be disregarded.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Apsley v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 163201 (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2007)

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiffs moved to compel further responses and production of information from the defendants, and also asked the court to rule on plaintiffs’ email search protocol. Plaintiffs sought to compel Boeing and defendant Spirit Aerosystems to produce emails under the following criteria:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Roberts v. Canadian Pac. R.R. Ltd., 2007 WL 118901 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2007)

In this decision, Chief District Judge James M. Rosenbaum granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery concerning spoliation of evidence on an expedited basis. The case concerned a train derailment accident that occurred near Minot, North Dakota, and was one of more than 100 cases removed to the court after having been filed in state court. During the state court proceedings, plaintiffs had discovered an email message sent by a manager to the railroad’s top claims agent. The message began by stating: “In the tradition of keeping very few Minot-related e-mails . . .” The manager was deposed and asked about the email, at which time he admitted destroying emails regarding the derailment, purportedly based upon the direction of a higher-up in the organization. Subsequent to the deposition, defendants apparently hired a computer forensics expert to investigate whether electronic data was destroyed, and if so, whether any deleted material could be retrieved. Plaintiffs sought to discover the results of the investigation and to depose the forensics expert as soon as possible.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 121426 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2007)

This case is a consolidated multidistrict litigation brought by some plaintiffs as a putative class action, as well as by other individual plaintiffs who sued exclusively on their own behalf. In this decision, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein addressed a dispute that arose between the individual plaintiffs and the defendants regarding metadata and the format of production. Between June and November 2006, the individual plaintiffs had made at least six productions of electronic documents using their own protocol, which involved printing electronic documents and then scanning the pages thus printed to create “TIFF” images, which could be converted into a searchable text file through the use of “OCR” software. “In other words, Individual Plaintiffs have rather laboriously stripped their text-searchable electronic documents of metadata that would not appear in printed form, and then converted them back into text-searchable electronic documents without that subset of metadata.”
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hedenburg v. Aramark Am. Food Servs., 2007 WL 162716 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2007)

In this employment discrimination case, defendant sought to probe the veracity of plaintiff's claims by seeking a "mirror image" of plaintiff's home computer hard drive. Defendant contended that plaintiff’s personal correspondence with unnamed third parties (in the form of emails or internet postings) might reveal discrepancies in her testimony about the impact of the events on her emotional state, or in her testimony about what occurred. Defendant argued that access to a plaintiff's computer was common in employment cases, and offered to have the hard drive mirror image sent to a "special master” in an effort to avoid retrieval of privileged or other non-discoverable information. Plaintiff stated that she made a diligent search for her computer files and contended that she did not have additional information. She objected to the discovery as a "fishing expedition" and refused to permit the defendant access to her home computer's hard drive.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2006 WL 3691604 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2006)

In this decision, Magistrate Judge Waxse addressed plaintiffs’ continuing complaints about defendant’s separate production of transmittal emails and the spreadsheets they transmitted. The issue had been raised and discussed during several conferences with the court, and defendant had agreed to provide a “Spreadsheet Report” that would cross-reference the hard copy transmittal emails to the electronic spreadsheets. However, plaintiffs continued to experience difficulty matching up the transmittal emails and their attachments and moved for the production of the transmittal emails and their attachments in native format. Plaintiffs argued that this would eliminate the complicated, confusing, incomplete, and inaccurate Spreadsheet Reports and put both parties on the same discovery playing field.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Semsroth v. City of Wichita, 239 F.R.D. 630 (D. Kan. 2006)

In this employment discrimination suit, the plaintiffs requested information relating to emails sent to or by other officers within the Wichita Police Department.  Through negotiations, the parties narrowed that request to copies of emails from 117 different supervising officers to the extent that such emails existed on a back-up tape of July 23, 2004.  The city moved for a protective order that would shift the cost of searching the backup tape to the plaintiffs, estimating the cost to be between $1,950 and $2,625.

Citing the Zubulake decisions, the court declined to conclude that cost of restoring and searching the email backup tape was such as to render that back-up tape "not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost."  However, it found that limits on the scope of the discovery were nonetheless appropriate under Rule 26(b)(2).  Accordingly, the court limited the scope of the discovery in two respects:  (1) It struck several search terms proposed by plaintiffs because it concluded that they were common enough that they might well result in identification of a significant volume of irrelevant email; and (2) It reduced the number of mailboxes to be searched from 117 to 50.  Plaintiffs would be allowed to choose which 50 mailboxes would be searched.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 41954 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 4, 2007)

In this personal injury product liability case, plaintiffs sought production of the legal hold notice issued by defendant to its employees, among other categories of material. The court denied the request for the legal hold notice, concluding that it was not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The court explained:

The document Plaintiffs request is simply a description of material employees were instructed not to discard. In the Court's experience, these instructions are often, if not always, drafted by counsel, involve their work product, are often overly inclusive, and the documents they list do not necessarily bear a reasonable relationship to the issues in litigation. This is not a document relating to the Defendant's business. Rather, the document relates exclusively to this litigation, was apparently created after this dispute arose, and exists for the sole purpose of assuring compliance with discovery that may be required in this litigation. Not only is the document likely to constitute attorney work-product, but its compelled production could dissuade other businesses from issuing such instructions in the event of litigation. Instructions like the one that appears to have been issued here insure the availability of information during litigation. Parties should be encouraged, not discouraged, to issue such directives. Defendants are not required to produce these materials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 2007 WL 38230 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2007)

In this opinion, the court modified its September 5, 2006 order (summarized here) which shifted to the plaintiff 30 percent of the costs of producing the emails of one witness (Barron) restored from backup tapes. After that prior order was entered, defendant submitted an affidavit from its vendor stating that 14 backup tapes had been restored in order to recover Barron’s emails, and that the total cost was $9,187.50. Plaintiff submitted a letter and exhibits in response, pointing out that the 14 tapes also contained the emails of other custodians whose emails were ordered produced and the tapes would, therefore, have had to have been restored in any event. Plaintiff argued that she should be responsible for only 30 percent of the share allocable to Barron’s emails.

The court agreed, and found it unfair to shift a portion of the entire cost since the backup tapes would have had to have been restored even if Barron’s emails had not been ordered produced. The court set out its formula for calculating plaintiff’s share of the cost, which amounted to $448, and ordered plaintiff to remit that amount to defendant within ten days.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81 (D.N.J. 2006)

In this lengthy opinion, the court ruled upon plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default based upon defendants’ discovery misconduct and other discovery-related motions. Although it reserved judgment on whether a default should be entered, the court found that a variety of severe sanctions were appropriate given defendants’ “systemic and shocking” discovery abuses. The sanctions included: (1) deeming certain facts as admitted by defendant for all purposes in the litigation, including equitable relief; (2) precluding defendant's use of documents not produced in discovery; (3) striking privilege assertions as to certain documents; (4) imposing monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined after the court considered defendant's financial situation; and (5) appointing a discovery monitor at defendants’ expense to review defendants’ compliance with the court's discovery orders. The court explained:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought an array of preclusive sanctions against defendant for alleged discovery misconduct. Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant did not make complete or timely searches for certain categories of documents and e-mails. It also contended that defendant did not give adequate instructions to its employees to preserve documents and that it improperly deleted e-mails from a customer relations chat room that might have been a source of pertinent information. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2006 WL 3803152 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2006)

In this case involving UCC claims stemming from defendant’s internet-based check service, defendant disputed that it did sufficient business with Ohio residents to subject it to the court's jurisdiction. The court allowed limited discovery on the issue, and plaintiff propounded a number of interrogatories concerning any business contacts between the defendant and the state of Ohio or Ohio residents. Defendant replied “unknown” to the interrogatories, and stated that its customers were not required to provide address information; however, it failed to state whether any customers, despite not being required to provide their addresses' or their payees' addresses, had actually done so, or whether customer or payee addresses were available to defendant in its customer database.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Davis, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3837518 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2006)

The facts underlying the lawsuit are as follows. In June 2006, Davis, a long-time employee of plaintiff Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, resigned to join GeoSouthern Energy Corporation. It was undisputed that just before leaving Anadarko in July 2006, Davis downloaded confidential or proprietary information from Anadarko's computers. When he joined GeoSouthern, Davis transferred that information to GeoSouthern's computers. Anadarko sued Davis and GeoSouthern in September 2006. Davis admitted that he misappropriated confidential or proprietary information, but denied any significant use of it and denied any use of it to Anadarko's detriment. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 729 N.W.2d 757 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007)

In this open records case, WIREdata, Inc. had filed open records requests with three municipalities seeking property assessment records in the format created and maintained by the municipalities' independent contractor assessors in a computer database.  The court held that the open records law allowed WIREdata the opportunity to access that database in order to examine and copy the property assessment records, and that the municipalities committed open records law violations when they denied WIREdata such access and instead provided it with a “PDF,” or portable document file.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

May v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, 2006 WL 3827511 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 28, 2006)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff moved for sanctions on the grounds that defendant had committed spoliation by failing to preserve relevant evidence that it relied on in defending the case and that would potentially have been favorable to plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant violated its duty to supplement or correct various discovery disclosures. The court reviewed the various categories of documents and ESI in dispute, and concluded that sanctions were appropriate even though there was no evidence that any actual “spoliation” had occurred.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ameriwood Ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006)

In this trade secrets case, the plaintiff alleged that defendants – plaintiff's former employees and their recently formed company – improperly used plaintiff’s computers and confidential information regarding its business, and defendants’ positions of trust and confidence while in plaintiff's employ to sabotage plaintiff's business relationships and divert plaintiff's business to themselves. In discovery, plaintiff sought production of: “All computer or portable or detachable hard drives, or mirror images thereof, used by Liberman, Fridley, or Kleist since May 2005, including but not limited to any computer or portable or detachable hard drives in their homes.” Defendants objected that the request was overbroad, vague, and burdensome and called for irrelevant information. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressing this and other discovery requests.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Bianchi v. The Bureaus, Inc., 2006 WL 3802758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2006)

In this brief order, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to allow her computer expert access a database maintained by defendant, for the purpose of determining whether the account information relating to plaintiff had been altered.  There was an issue about whether defendant had received notice of plaintiff’s bankruptcy, and whether a “bankruptcy scrub” of plaintiff’s account had been requested or done.  Plaintiff agreed to cover the expense of the examination, and the expert would access the database under a protocol agreed to by the parties solely to verify plaintiff’s account.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3821491 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2006)

In this order, the court ordered plaintiff’s expert witness to “immediately preserve any and all documents and information including, but not limited to, all computer(s), hard-drives, other electronic storage media, hardcopy documents, emails, e-documents, text messaging, instant messaging, phone records and voice mails, that refer or relate to Zyprexa,” his receipt of confidential documents, his obligations under various case management orders, and various other topics. The court cautioned that, if anything responsive to the order had been deleted or destroyed, “any and all relevant computers” were to be produced to permit forensic examination and recovery of such documents.

A copy of a New York Times article filed in the case and providing some background for the order is here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

In this reinsurance case, plaintiff sought an order compelling defendant to produce certain claim information. Defendant opposed the motion partly on the basis of undue burden. It explained that, although it processed thousands of claims, its computer system was incapable of segregating claims by the amount of the claim, the type of claim, the identity of the cedent, or the reason the claim may have been denied. The court criticized the argument, stating: “A sophisticated reinsurer that operates a multimillion dollar business is entitled to little sympathy for utilizing an opaque data storage system, particularly when, by the nature of its business, it can reasonably anticipate frequent litigation.” At the same time, the court acknowledged that a search of defendant’s entire database was infeasible in light of the tremendous volume of material accumulated. Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to propose a sampling protocol to obtain examples of claims files in which issues similar to those presented in the case were addressed. In order to facilitate that process, the court further ordered that counsel could take the depositions of persons familiar with defendant’s data storage system. Finally, the court ordered that, to the extent that defendant objected to any sampling proposal advanced by Zurich, it would be required to support its objections with specific evidence of the cost and burden involved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 2006 WL 3499992 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006)

In this decision, the court concluded that plaintiff’s “persistent and egregious noncompliance with a series of discovery orders” fully warranted severe sanctions, including dismissal of its complaint and entry of default on defendant’s counterclaims. Among other failings, the court noted that plaintiff’s search for documents from its document storage and retrieval system was largely unproductive, and that plaintiff’s counsel had attributed the lack of success to defects in the keywords provided by defendant. The court rejected this attempt to shift blame:
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

This constitutes the parties’ agreed order and statement as to a document management plan in this multi-district litigation concerning two prescription drugs. Among other things, the parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve the hard drives of computers used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ decedents, and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol. The parties also agreed that responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) would be collected by defendants from defendants' active IT environment, and that “absent some exceptional circumstance and a demonstration by plaintiffs of some substantial need, defendants shall not be required to restore any backup tapes (specifically including but not limited to the 35 back-up tapes defendants made on April 29, 2005, specifically for purposes of this litigation).” The parties agreed that defendants would preserve the 35 backup tapes, but that they may otherwise resume the recycling of backup tapes.

Plaintiffs also agreed to defer to defendants as to the format of production, and specifically agreed to take ESI produced by defendants in any format that generally is searchable and manageable, including in native file format or as single page TIFF images with associated metadata.

The parties were unable to reach agreement on three subject areas, and those matters would be subject to further briefing and argument. Those disputed topics include: (1) how the cost of the discovery plaintiffs seek from defendants should be apportioned; (2) the scope of discovery relating to the production of entire electronic databases; and (3) whether plaintiffs should be allowed to perform their own forensic examination of plaintiffs’ computer hard drives, or whether an independent forensic consultant should perform the analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments