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

People v. Harris, No. 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.)

Following up on the case summary from last week (posted May 1, 2012) in which the court denied defendant’s motion to quash the District Attorney's subpoena and issued an order requiring the production of defendant’s user information and Tweets from Twitter, Inc., this week brings us Twitter, Inc.’s motion to quash the court’s order.  Filed on May 7, 2012, the motion seeks to quash the court’s order on the grounds that the order imposes an undue burden on Twitter for reasons including that it requires them to violate the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., No. M 09-2029 PJH, 2012 WL 1414111 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)

Plaintiffs moved for review of the clerk’s taxation of costs, including those related to electronic discovery.  Noting the recent decision of the Third Circuit in Race Tires America Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp, which narrowly interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) and which vacated a lower court’s approval of many costs related to electronic discovery, the California court nonetheless declined to disallow the costs related to electronic discovery in this case: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

People v. Harris, ---N.Y.S.2d---, 2012 WL 1381238 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. Apr. 20, 2012)

In this case, the court held that the defendant did not have standing to move to quash a subpoena seeking production of his Tweets and the user information associated with his Twitter account because the defendant “had no proprietary interests” in the information sought and because his claimed privacy interest was “understandable” but “without merit.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2012)

In a much anticipated opinion, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. has denied the objections of Plaintiffs and upheld Magistrate Judge Peck’s orders approving Defendant’s use of predictive coding to review its own documents and adopting Defendant's proposed protocol.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Global Aerospace, Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P., No. CL 61040 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012)

In this Virginia state court case, the defendants asked to be allowed to use predictive coding for the processing and production of their own ESI.  The Loudon County Circuit Judge granted the request, and "allowed" the defendants to use predictive coding, subject to objections plaintiffs may want to raise once they obtain the resulting production from the defendants.  The Virginia court's one-paragraph order states, in its substantive entirety:

Having heard argument . . . it is hereby ordered Defendants shall be allowed to proceed with the use of predictive coding for purposes of the processing and production of electronically stored information, with processing to be completed within 60 days and production to follow as soon as practicable and in no more than 60 days.  This is without prejudice to a receiving party raising with the Court an issue as to completeness or the contents of the production or the ongoing use of predictive coding.

A copy of defendants’ motion for a protective order to allow predictive coding is available here.

A copy of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for a protective order is available here.  (Exhibits to this opposition are not currently available.)

A copy of the court’s order granting defendants’ motion is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, No. 2:12-cv-00059-KJD-VCF, 2012 WL 1155741 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2012)

Here, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel mirror-imaging of defendants’ personal computers for the purpose of preservation where plaintiff alleged that defendants had wrongfully accessed its computer systems using the personal computers at issue, where plaintiff asserted that defendants’ ongoing use of the computers would result in the loss of relevant data, and where the court determined that in light of the circumstances of the case (and following analysis of the relevant factors) the need for mirror-imaging outweighed the burden.

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

Lubber Inc. v. Optari, LLC, No. 3:11-0042, 2012 WL 899631 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2012)

In this case, the court considered defendants’ motion for a protective order to restrict the relevant time frame for additional electronic searches and plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in nine categories.  Upon consideration of the issues, the court denied defendants’ motion, but ordered the parties to split the expenses related to material not already produced.  Regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court indicated its concern that “Plaintiff will be able to win on these issues” and therefore required that plaintiff post a $10,000 bond, intended to “allow the Plaintiff to secure this information if they wish to pursue this discovery, while at the same time offering some protection to the Defendants should they prevail.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 674 F.R.D. 158 (3d Cir. 2012)

On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s approval of taxable costs related to electronic discovery and remanded with instruction to re-tax in accordance with this opinion.  Specifically, the court concluded that the relevant vendors’ charges “would not qualify as fees for ‘exemplification’” and that “of the numerous services the vendors performed, only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved ‘copying’” and were thus recoverable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.)

On March 13, 2012, approximately 2 ½ weeks after Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck issued his much-talked about opinion approving “computer-assisted review,”  District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. has granted plaintiffs’ request to submit additional briefing on their objections to the ruling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., ---F. Supp. 2d---, 2012 WL 360509 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012)

After repeated representations that all responsive documents had been produced, a defendant belatedly discovered and produced an additional 60,000 pages.  Upon plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, the court found that the defendant “did not conduct a reasonable inquiry” to ensure production of all responsive documents and had run “afoul” of Rule 26(e).  Accordingly, the court ordered discovery re-opened and that the defendant pay plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees caused by the defendant’s failure, including the cost of the necessary motions and the extended discovery period.

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

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012)

Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck issued an opinion on Friday, February 24, 2012, approving of the use of computer-assisted review of electronically stored information (“ESI”) by the parties in this case.  The opinion, which discusses both the details of the underlying case and the topic of computer-assisted review more generally, addresses a myriad of issues including how computer-assisted review works (generally) and what benefits it may provide.  The court appears to be the first to recognize that “computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2012)

On February 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck conducted a hearing addressing several discovery issues which included a lengthy discussion of an appropriate protocol for predictive coding and resulted in an order for the parties to submit their draft protocols by February 16th.  The hearing was attended by counsel and their respective ESI experts.  A written opinion is expected which may distill some of the more technical aspects of the discussion.  Nonetheless, for those with the time, the (rather lengthy) transcript of the hearing is fascinating, and certainly worth a read.

A copy of the transcript is available here.

If and when an opinion is issued in this matter, it will be available here as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Voom Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, ---N.Y.S.2d---, 2012 WL 265833 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 31, 2012)

In this case, the appellate court held that the lower court “properly invoked the standard for preservation set forth in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC”, which requires that a party place a litigation hold once it “reasonably anticipates litigation” and affirmed the lower court’s order imposing an adverse inference for defendant’s spoliation of ESI.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pippins v. KPMG LLP, ---F.R.D.---, 2012 WL 370321 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012)

In this opinion, the District Court found the Magistrate Judge’s order requiring defendant’s preservation of more than 2500 hard drives was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  Finding objections to the order moot, however, because plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class was granted, the court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and ordered preservation of the hard drives until the parties could agree on a sampling methodology, until defendant abandoned a particular litigation position, or until members of each relevant class were established.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Evans v. Mobile Cnty. Health Dept., No. CA 10-0600-WS-C, 2012 WL 206141 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012)

In this case, the defendant sought to compel the production of additional information and sanctions for plaintiff’s destruction of her computer.  Following its analysis of the facts, including plaintiff’s admission that the computer used during the time of her alleged harassment had been burned and replaced, the court granted defendant’s motions and compelled production of additional ESI as well as plaintiff’s new computer and imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d (3d Cir. 2012)

In this case, the appellate court concluded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,” but found that in the present case, the District Court abused its discretion in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wood v. Town of Warsaw, N.C., No. 7:10-CV-00219-D, 2011 WL 6748797 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2011)

Defendant moved to modify a subpoena which sought access to a non-party’s personal hard drive.  Upon plaintiff’s clarification that he would bear the costs of the search and cooperate to negotiate search terms and that he sought only the non-privileged ESI identified by search terms and not all contents of the drive, the court ordered that the non-party’s counsel could review the results before production and allowed the search to go forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Atlantis Capital LLC v. AGS Specialist Partners, No. 04 C 0397, 2011 WL 6097769 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2011)

In this case, Plaintiffs proposed that Defendants share in the cost of obtaining data that Plaintiffs subpoenaed.  Obtaining the information at issue was described by the court as “the linchpin of this entire matter.”  Moreover, the court had suggested (at a status conference) that it would be “reasonable” for Defendants to aid in half the costs.  However, Defendants “steadfastly maintained that they ha[d] no independent need for the information, except for rebuttal purposes” and objected strongly to the proposed cost-sharing on the grounds that there was “neither reason nor precedent” for it.  Noting that “the time to take definitive stance on the issue ha[d] arrived,” the court agreed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Patel v. Havana Bar, Restaurant & Catering, No. 10-1383, 2011 WL 6029983 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2011)

In this opinion addressing the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, the court ordered an adverse inference for defendants’ failure to preserve relevant video surveillance footage and an adverse inference for plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant witness statements.  For plaintiff’s other discovery violations, including delayed and piecemeal production of witness statements and failure to timely produce a full copy of the relevant police report, as well as for the spoliation of witness statements, the court ordered re-deposition of several witnesses at plaintiff’s expense.  The court also awarded defendants’ attorneys fees and costs “for the time and effort they expended in attempting to obtain discovery that they were entitled to receive.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc., No. 03-3677 (DRD), 2011 WL 6140658 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011)

“This case highlights the dangers of carelessness and inattention in e-discovery.”  In this case, the court affirmed the order of the Magistrate Judge which excused plaintiff from the obligation of reviewing and producing millions of pages of documents recovered from unallocated space files in light of the extreme burden and cost of such an undertaking.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., No. 2011-1199, 2011 WL 5928689 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011)

In this case, Ricoh sought review of the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys related to the parties’ use of Stratify (“a third-party electronic database service”) for the production of email.  The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that costs related to the database could be recovered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), but reversed the lower court’s award in light of the parties' agreement to split the costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Naaco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co., 278 F.R.D. 395 (W.D. Tenn. 2011)

In this case, the court found that defendant “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information . . . after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint” which may have resulted in the destruction of relevant evidence.  Further, defendant failed to present an adequately prepared and knowledgeable 30(b)(6) deponent.  Accordingly, sanctions were imposed, including, among other things, additional discovery, additional forensic imaging at defendant’s expense, and monetary sanctions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TJS of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation and Fin., 932 N.Y.S.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 3, 2011)

In this case, the court determined that the software program necessary to view certain files produced to the petitioner subject to New York’s Freedom of Information Law was a “record” for purposes of the law and was thus subject to production itself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., No. 09 Cr. 1058, 2011 WL 5448066 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2011)

In this case, defendants were charged with crimes “arising out of an alleged conspiracy . . . to illegally rig bids, fix prices, and manipulate the market for investment instruments known as municipal derivatives.”  Following the prosecution’s production of ESI, defendants sought to compel re-production in categorized batches relating to transactions with certain characteristics.  Defendants’ motion was denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL.08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Sept. 1, 2011); Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011)

In this case, significant monetary sanctions were ordered against the plaintiff and his counsel for egregious discovery violations, including intentional deletion of pictures on Plaintiff’s Facebook page per the instructions of Counsel and subsequent efforts to cover those instructions up, among others.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, 2011 WL 5244356 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

In this patent case, Defendant sought an order adopting a modified version of the Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases (“Model Order”) recently promulgated by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit (available here).  Significantly, the Model Order limits the discovery of email by placing limitations on the allowable number of custodians and search terms.  According to the court, such limitations “are designed to address the imbalance of benefit and burden resulting from email production in most cases.”  The order proposed by the Defendant similarly limited the discovery of email.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., No. 08-CV-1462-IEG (WVG), 2011 WL 4835742 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)

Here, the court denied Plaintiff’s “motion to stay, deny, or re-tax the Clerk’s taxation of costs awarded to Defendants.”  Specifically, the court declined to deny or re-tax costs awarded for converting data to the .TIFF format or to deny or re-tax costs related to a project manager who “oversaw the process of converting data to the .TIFF format to prevent inconsistent or duplicative processing.”  Regarding the latter, the court reasoned that “[b]ecause the project manager’s duties were limited to the physical production of data, the related costs are recoverable.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 0377 (CM)(JLC), 2011 WL 4701849 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011)

KPMG sought a protective order to limit the scope of its preservation obligation or to shift a portion of its preservation costs to plaintiffs.  At the time, the parties awaited ruling on plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify and KPMG was preserving more than 2,500 hard drives at a cost of more than $1,500,000.  Following the court’s analysis, the motion was denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., 817 F. Supp. 2d (E.D. Pa. 2011)

In this case, the court addressed plaintiffs’ motion to deny or reduce defendants’ bill of costs, and in particular their objections to the costs related to electronic discovery.  Recognizing that “taxing e-discovery is a new area of law where courts have diverged in their approaches,” the court denied plaintiff’s motion as to many of the costs at issue but did disallow or reduce some costs, including those incurred for the convenience of counsel.

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

Pacific Coast Steel, Inc. v. Leany, No. 2:09-cv-12190-KJD-PAL, 2011 WL 4573243 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2011)

Plaintiffs purchased the assets of several companies in which Defendant Leany had an ownership interest and hired him as an Executive Vice President of Pacific Coast Steel (“PCS”).  Leany was eventually terminated and his computer seized.  The privileged documents at issue in this opinion were either on Leany’s work computer at the time of his termination or had been migrated to a PCS server from one of defendants’ servers that was purchased by the plaintiffs.  When litigation ensued, defendants sought the return of the privileged documents in plaintiffs’ possession and a protective order prohibiting inquiry into certain areas related to those documents.  The court declined to grant the protective order upon finding that defendants’ privilege was waived because of their failure to “take reasonable means to preserve the confidentiality of the privileged information.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Susan Altman, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its October 3, 2011 decision in Suzlon Energy Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation, has taken another step in defining the rights of people to protect their emails from being disclosed in civil court proceedings.  The question before the Suzlon court was whether a party can require a U.S. electronic communication service provider to produce emails stored on a U.S. server for the account of a non-U.S. national without regard to the safeguards and restrictions imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).  The court answered with a clear “no,” stating that the protections of the ECPA against unrestricted disclosure of emails by an electronic communication service provider apply to non-U.S. nationals as well as to U.S. citizens.

To continue reading, click here (and be taken to K&L Gates' Legal Cloud Central Blog).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United Cent. Bank v. Kanan Fashions, Inc., No. 10 CV 331, 2011 WL 4396912 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2011); United Cent. Bank v. Kanan Fashions, Inc., No. 10 C 331, 2011 WL 4396856 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2011)

In this case, the magistrate judge recommended sanctions against defendants for their bad faith spoliation of a relevant server where the evidence strongly suggested that defendants arranged for the sale of the server to company in Dubai, which resulted in the unavailability of its admittedly relevant contents.  The magistrate judge declined to sanction defendants' attorneys, however, where the evidence indicated that they made efforts to ensure preservation but were misled by their clients and unaware “of what was going on behind the scenes.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United States v. Briggs, No. 10CR184S, 2011 WL 4017886 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2011)

Defendants were charged with several counts related to the distribution of cocaine.  In its disclosures, the Government produced thousands of pages of documents as well as audio recordings, none of which were text searchable.  Defendants sought reproduction.  Noting the lack of relevant criminal rules and discussing the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, the court relied upon its inherent authority to order reproduction in native format or in a PDF format “suitable for searching.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Williams v. District of Columbia, 806 F. Supp. 2d (D.D.C. 2011)

In this case, the court denied the defendant’s motion to exclude an inadvertently produced email where the defendant failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure and where the defendant failed to promptly take reasonable steps to rectify the error.  In so holding, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that its actions pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(B) (i.e. sending a written request for the return of the email) were sufficient to discharge its obligations under FRE 502(b)(3).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011)

In this case, the Special Master considered the question of whether, under the particular circumstances of this case, emails and their attachments should be considered singular or separate entities and thus, whether they must be produced together.  While no definitive answer emerged, the Special Master’s consideration of the issues and resulting recommendation are illuminating, and were ultimately adopted by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Katiroll Co., Inc. v. Kati Roll & Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB), 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011)

In this trademark infringement case, Plaintiff sought sanctions for defendants’ alleged spoliation of several categories of evidence, including the contents of the individual defendant’s Facebook page.  Specifically, plaintiff sought sanctions for the defendant’s failure to preserve his Facebook pages in their “original state” i.e., before they were taken down, and because he changed the Facebook profile picture (which had previously displayed the infringing trade dress at issue) without preserving the prior image.  The court held that while the spoliation was unintentional, it was nonetheless “somewhat prejudicial” and ordered the defendant to change the picture back for a brief time, to allow plaintiff to print whatever posts it found relevant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Vill. of Park Forest, Nos. 8 C 1225, 08-C-0869, 08-C-4303, 2011 WL 3489828 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2011)

The court held that privilege was waived as to inadvertently produced documents where defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and failed to rectify the error in a timely way.  In so finding, the court cited defendants’ failure to conduct a final check before production, the failure of the process to protect any privilege (all privileged documents were produced), the nine months between production and discovery of the disclosure, and the failure to timely produce a privilege log, among other things.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United States v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 3426046 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2011)

Here, the Commonwealth sought to avoid producing allegedly inaccessible information.  The court declined to excuse production, reasoning in part that it was the Commonwealth’s own “negligent failure to take steps to adequately preserve information” which rendered the information "less accessible."  Instead, the court indicated that it would order the backup tapes and forensic images be produced to defendants “for use by a commercial vendor” to retrieve the information “in a format usable by the Commonwealth” and that defendants would bear the costs, subject to a motion seeking reimbursement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011)

The court found that defendant breached its preservation duty when key employees intentionally deleted ESI in bad faith.  Acknowledging Kolon’s (insufficient) attempts to place a litigation hold, the court declined to impose default judgment, but ordered sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs related to the motion, and an adverse inference instruction.  In so doing, the court rejected arguments that plaintiff suffered no prejudice and that because many of the files were recovered, there was no spoliation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Campbell Ins., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00604, 2011 WL 3021399 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2011)

In this case, the court denied plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence as untimely, citing the facts that it had been 14 months since the alleged spoliation was discovered, that discovery had already closed, and that trial was weeks away.  In reaching its conclusion, the court relied heavily on the summary of the law regarding the timeliness of spoliation motions laid out by the court in Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Toft, No. 11-11049 (ALG), 2011 WL 3023544 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011)

In this case, a foreign applicant, Dr. Martin Prager, sought recognition and enforcement of a German court’s “Mail Interception Order” which authorized Prager, as insolvency administrator, to intercept the debtor’s postal and electronic mail.  The court, following its determination that there was a sufficient basis to exercise jurisdiction, denied the application upon finding that the relief requested was manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, No. 592,2010, 2011 WL 2802832 (Del. July 18, 2011)

As previously summarized on this blog (here), the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction.  On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the sanctions, citing the defendant’s intentional, affirmative actions to destroy documents, and clarified that it did not “read the Court of Chancery’s Spoliation Opinion to hold that as a matter of routine document retention procedures, a computer hard drive’s unallocated free space must always be preserved.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

PIC Group, Inc. v. LandCoast Insulation, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-662-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 2669144 (S.D. Miss. July 7, 2011)

A Special Master determined that defendant’s discovery failures were largely the result of a “callous and careless attitude” rather than a “craven effort to hide or destroy information”, save one instance of intentional deletion by defendant’s Manager of Legal Affairs.  Adopting in part the Special Master’s recommendations, the court ordered sanctions, including production of the non-privileged contents of the manager’s hard drive and payment of plaintiff’s attorney’s costs and fees, with the condition that payment be rendered by defendant, not its insurance company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 2:11 cv 93, 2011 WL 2600756 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2011)

In this case, plaintiff came to believe, based on defendant’s comments and refusal to issue a litigation hold, that relevant evidence would be destroyed.  Accordingly, plaintiff moved for an Order to Preserve Evidence.  Following consideration of the relevant factors and upon rejecting defendant’s arguments that plaintiff's motion was improper prior to the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the court granted the motion and ordered defendant to implement a litigation hold on information that may reasonably be related to the pending litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1789, 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011)

In this case arising from a car accident which the plaintiff claimed resulted in physical and psychological injuries, the parties invited the court to conduct a review of Plaintiff’s social networking accounts “in order to determine whether certain information contained within Plaintiff's accounts is properly subject to discovery.”  Using Plaintiff’s log-in information, the court reviewed Plaintiff’s Facebook account, including “a thorough review of Plaintiff’s ‘Profile’ postings, photographs, and other information.”  (Plaintiff's MySpace account was not searched as it had not been accessed since November 2008 and Plaintiff could not locate the log-in information.)  The court then identified potentially relevant information to be produced, including, for example, photos and updates indicating recent motorcycle trips and “photographs and comments suggesting that he may have recently ridden a mule.”  In finding that some of the “public information contained in Plaintiff’s account is properly subject to limited discovery in this case,” the court noted Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that “limited [relevant] ‘public’ information is clearly discoverable under recent case law.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

The text of the Order withdrawing the opinion is short, and is provided below:

This court has been informed that the parties have recently resolved their dispute regarding the form and format in which records will be produced by defendants in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.  In the interests of justice, this Court now believes that it would be prudent to withdraw the opinion it issued on February 7, 2011 (Docket #41).  I do so because, as subsequent submissions have shown, that decision was not based on a full and developed record.  By withdrawing the decision, it is the intent of this Court that the decision shall have no precedential value in this lawsuit or in any other lawsuit.

The Court also withdraws its Supplemental Order dated February 14, 2011 (Docket # 50).

A copy of the opinion is also available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. MJG-06-2662 (D. Md. June 15, 2011)

In another chapter of the Victor Stanley saga, the defendant objected to payment of the remaining balance of the monetary sanction ordered as a result of its spoliation of evidence (see Victor Stanley II).  Specifically, the defendant had been ordered to pay a monetary sanction “equivalent to Plaintiff’s fees and costs ‘associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendant’s spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearing regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.’”  The total award of sanctions amounted to $1,049,850.04.  Defendant objected to payment of fees which it alleged were unrelated to its spoliation.  The District Court disagreed and found that the recommended award was proper.  Accordingly, defendant was ordered to pay the remaining balance of the sanction, $571,440.12, by July 15, 2011.

A copy of the order is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gaalla v. Citizens Med. Ctr., No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011)

Plaintiffs moved for sanctions based on defendant’s failure to preserve its disaster recovery back-up tapes, which were overwritten every seven or fourteen days, even after the filing of this lawsuit.  Further, “as the briefing developed,” plaintiffs “appeared to contend” that even absent a duty to preserve the disaster recovery back-up tapes themselves, “[defendant]’s failure to preserve the back-up tapes in conjunction with the failure to take timely ‘snapshots’… of relevant email accounts, and evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past warrant[ed] severe sanctions.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Innis, No. 4:09-cv-061, 2011 WL 2174045 (D.N.D. June 2, 2011)

Plaintiff alleged that a former employee had downloaded its confidential information and used it to “jump start” his own competing company.  Defendant Innis acknowledged that he had downloaded the information, but denied accessing or using it as plaintiff alleged.  Forensic examination of the thumb drive containing the downloaded information contradicted his claims.  Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of  materials previously identified in a subpoena duces tecum and, “to minimize disruption to defendants’ operations and alleviate their concerns about the disclosure of privileged communications,” proposed that an expert of plaintiff’s choosing be allowed to image defendants’ computers at plaintiff’s expense, and that defendants be allowed to screen the imaged documents prior to their production.  Citing Innis’s acknowledgment that he had copied plaintiff’s confidential information and evidence that he had accessed it thereafter, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks