Archive - 2009

1
Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)
2
Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)
3
Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC 2009 WL 1748526 (D. Mass. June 22, 2009)
4
Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)
5
Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)
6
Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)
7
Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)
8
Andrew Corp. v. Cassinelli, 2009 WL 736669 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009)
9
Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)
10
Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)

Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court endorsed ?middle ground? approach to a determination of the waiver of privilege, as adopted by FRE 502, and ordered the return of privileged and work product documents produced by defendant upon finding that the production was inadvertent, that defendant took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, that counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error and that ?the number and magnitude of the disclosures in light of the overall production weigh[ed] against waiver?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced one privileged email among thousands of pages and did not actually discover such production until months later, despite plaintiff?s reference to the email in a single spaced 5 page letter, and where upon discovery of the inadvertent production defendant immediately sought the email?s return, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant had waived privilege by failing to seek the email?s return within ten days, subject to the parties? clawback agreement, and ordered the email returned

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Andrew Corp. v. Cassinelli, 2009 WL 736669 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009)

Key Insight: Where court ordered discovery into extent of defendant?s compliance with Settlement Agreement upon plaintiff?s showing that confidential information remained on defendant?s computer system and where defendant?s court ordered search for additional information included retention of discovery firm to search seven computers, an email server, and a scratch drive using 26 terms based on the content of the previously discovered confidential information, court found the search ?deficient? and that defendant had failed to confirm that all information subject to the Settlement Agreement was deleted and appointed a Special Master, at defendant?s expense, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s attorneys fees for its Motion to Enforce and Supplement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Where respondents argued that the exculpatory information sought was not ?reasonably available? under the relevant section of the case management order because several separate searches would be required in order to access all relevant databases, court stated that respondents appeared to misinterpret the relevant section to require production of ?easily available? information rather than ?reasonably available? information and granted petitioner?s motion to enforce the case management order and to allow searching of the relevant databases pursuant thereto

Electronic Data Involved: Database information accessed through Intellink search tool

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.