December 1, 2007 – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where parties had no prior agreement about the manner in which documents and ESI were to be produced and plaintiff did not specify format in requests for production, court found that defendants had the right under Rule 34 to choose the option of producing their documents and ESI as kept in the usual course of business and declined to order defendants to identify by Bates Numbers the documents and ESI that were responsive to each particular request for production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and ESI

CSI Inv. Partners, II v. Cendant Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant lost highly relevant financial and marketing data during data conversion but did not reveal the fact of the lost evidence until 3-1/2 years after plaintiffs originally requested it, and defendant raised frivolous and vexatious objections to plaintiffs’ requests for production, court found bad faith and ordered defendant to pay $720,000 to plaintiffs, representing 15 percent of plaintiffs? attorneys fees, as sanction for discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and marketing data

Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 2007 WL 3333016 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Though plaintiff?s counsel?s conduct in failing to give notice to defendant prior to executing subpoena and inspecting and copying two laptop computers of non-party was ?a flagrant abuse of the subpoena power and bad faith,? sanction of dismissal was too harsh and court instead imposed “sizeable” monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of two laptops owned by non-party

Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff contended that defendant had not thoroughly searched its electronic storage network or devices for relevant documents, court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to conduct and document a further comprehensive search since plaintiff failed to cite authority for proposition that court should enforce plaintiff?s subjective notion of how defendant should conduct discovery: ?Defendant is under a duty to produce all relevant documents. Defendant is not under a duty to comply with every discovery procedure requested by Plaintiff.?

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it ?difficult to imagine? that defendant did not possess any responsive electronic or paper documents, plaintiff submitted no information upon which to question defendant?s representation and court had no basis to compel production; court instead required defendant to supplement discovery responses unconditionally representing that no responsive documents were in its possession, custody or control

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records identifying vacant positions at GM plant

Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that all emails on DVD appeared to constitute “crucial evidence” in the case, court ordered their production notwithstanding plaintiff’s claimed burden and expense to review them and even though some of them may prove to be irrelevant to the dispute; court rejected plaintiff’s counsel’s claim of technical incompetence, finding that once he was on notice of potential problems he was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the contents of DVD

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged bad faith breach of insurance agreement

Electronic Data Involved: DVD containing email sent or received by plaintiff through University of Denver email account

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected non-party’s claim that it was entitled to recover full amount of fees expended to retrieve, identify and review 25 project files sought by plaintiffs (estimated to be $28,950, including $18,750 in attorneys fees for 50 hours of review), since non-party should have reasonably anticipated being involved in the discovery process of subsequent litigation concerning the marketing/prescribing behavior it studied, the cost could be borne by the non-party as overhead, and cost was less than four fifths (4/5) of one percent of the revenue the non-party generated from work on Seroquel products

Nature of Case: Drug product liability class action

Electronic Data Involved: 25 electronically-maintained project files relating to market research that non-party Harris performed on behalf of AstraZeneca with respect to Seroquel

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and 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,? 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?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Archive - December 1, 2007