December 2009 – Page 31 – Electronic Discovery Law

Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of Am., 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Emails sent to co-workers to recruit them as co-plaintiffs not protected by the work product doctrine where plaintiff merely assumed co-workers would keep his communications secret but where court found that sending emails to employees of a corporation increased the likelihood that the material would reach others within the corporation and thus ruled that plaintiff forfeited the protection by using the work product ?in such a way that they may end up in the hands of [his]adversary;? where plaintiff sent emails to attorney family members and copied his non-lawyer sister or another relative, court ruled emails were protected by work product doctrine because material was prepared in anticipation of litigation and sharing with relatives ?did not significantly increase the likelihood that [defendant] would obtain private information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2009 WL 426556 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Responding to several of plaintiff?s concerns regarding defendants? production of electronically stored information, special master recommended denial of plaintiff?s request for production of a new, updated database where plaintiff already received updates regarding changes made to the database, where accommodation of the request would require considerable effort by defendants, including stopping all user activity in the database and creating five copies of the information for dissemination to all parties, and where the requested production would make analysis of some key issues more difficult ? recommendation was adopted by the court

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Database

D.G ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, 2009 WL 455266 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion seeking production of emails from particular custodians and rejected defendant?s argument that cost of production should be shifted where defendants did not challenge the relevance of the emails at issue, where plaintiff?s ?reasonably limited their request to avoid undue burden? to defendants, and where the court?s consideration of the Zubulake factors resulted in a determination that cost shifting was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Class action against DSHS

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Am. Coal Sales Co. v. Nova Scotia Power, Inc., 2009 WL 467576 (S. D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiff ?took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent disclosures by having two attorneys review documents prior to production; that inadvertent production of one document out of over 2,000 documents produced does not weigh in favor of waiver; that the extent of the waiver was not great because the document had not worked its way into the fabric of the litigation; that Plaintiff took prompt measures to rectify the disclosure; and that the overriding interests of justice and fairness did not conclusively counsel in favor of waiver,? court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order preventing use of inadvertently disclosed email; court found ER 502 applicable, despite application of alternative five-factor test by magistrate, and determined that court?s application of ER 502 did not prevent review of magistrate?s ruling where ER 502 and five-factor test were sufficiently consistent (see FN 1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape

Hinojos v. Park City Mun. Corp., 2009 WL 392450 (D. Utah Feb. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion for forensic examination of defendant?s employee?s hard drive for purpose of verifying creation date of relevant evidence, but, finding direct access to employee?s computer ?too risky,? court ordered mutually acceptable independent expert to image computer?s storage space and provide image to plaintiff?s forensic expert for examination of the relevant data files; Plaintiff was to bear costs

Nature of Case: Employment case

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 2009 WL 222788 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants previously produced documents to regulators without any limitations as to subject matter, court ordered parties in present litigation to meet for at least four hours to discuss search terms intended to identify the relevant documents for production to plaintiff from amongst those already produced; where plaintiff sought documents beyond those previously produced to regulators, court found the request likely more burdensome than beneficial and ordered plaintiff to articulate need for additional documents and to consider compromises to avoid burden and expense

Nature of Case: Securities violations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion for fees and costs related to 30(b)(6) deposition despite acknowledgment that deposition was unnecessary but for city?s delay in locating copies of 911 tapes following original?s destruction by NYPD; court indicated familiarity with NYPD?s destruction of 911 tapes and, while recognizing unique concerns such as storage space, nonetheless indicated the need to balance that concern with the value of tape recorded evidence; court urged city?s counsel to consider measures to ensure preservation of tapes once litigation is anticipated

Nature of Case: Constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: 911 call tapes

Archive - December 2009