December 1, 2011 – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

State v. Pullens, 800 N.W.2d 202 (Neb. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court outlined possible ways to authenticate an email and found that the emails at issue were properly authenticated and admitted where some came from an account bearing the defendant?s name, where many were signed by the defendant, where some contained identifying information, including defendant?s social security number and telephone numbers and other personal facts, and where an investigator recalled that at least two of the email addresses contained in the at-issue emails had been used on the computer of the victim, with whom defendant was staying before her death; per the court, possible ways to authenticate an email include: by ?use of the email address, which many times contains the same of the sender;? by ?[t]he signature or name of the sender or recipient in the body of the email;? by evidence ?that an email is a timely response to an earlier message;? and by presentation of the ?contents of the email and other circumstances? which may show authorship

Nature of Case: Murder

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09cv1436-BEN (WMc), 2011 WL 2728217 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where target indicated the requested discovery would require the expenditure of approximately 146 hours of employees? time and cost $4,360 and also argued that the requested discovery would invade employees? privacy and was minimally relevant, court found that the burden to Target did not outweigh the likely benefit, rejected defendant?s arguments regarding privacy and relevance, and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-30, No. 2:11cv345, 2011 WL 2634166 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP

Pac. Century Int. Ltd. v. Does 1-101, No. C-11-02533-(DMR), 2011 WL 2690142 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of good cause, court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue a subpoena to the relevant ISP seeking identifying information regarding one unknown defendant (Doe 1) but denied the motion as to the remaining 100 Does because of improper joinder

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscriber

Pink Lotus Entm?t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-002263 HRI, 2011 WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After consideration of the four relevant factors to determine whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery and upon a determination that plaintiff had met its burden, court granted motion to allow expedited discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining indentifying information from alleged infringers? ISPs

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service providers

DFSB Kollective Co., Ltd. v. Jenpoo, No. 11-1050 SC, 2011 WL 2314161 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to conduct expedited discovery for the purpose of identifying alleged copyright infringer(s) and specified the Internet Service Providers to whom subpoenas may be served but declined to allow discovery from entities not sufficiently connected to the allegations or to allow discovery of information related to email addresses not related to the allegations

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from Internet Service Providers

Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00367 OWW SKO, 2011 WL 2551413 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff failed to properly authenticate emails allegedly sent to him by Clive Standish pursuant to either Evidence Rule 901(b)(1), permitting authentication through the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, or Rule 901(b)(4) which allows authentication by appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with circumstances and, absent admissible evidence to create a triable issue of material fact, granted defendant?s motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Couch v. Wan, No. 1:08cv1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 2551546 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After defendant reported that the estimated cost of searching its electronically stored information using the search terms provided by plaintiff would be ?at least $54,000? because of the need to hire an outside contractor to assist, the court found that the discovery requests imposed a burden on the defendant that warranted cost shifting and ordered the parties to met and confer to determine an appropriate cost sharing agreement; Reconsideration denied in Couch v. Wan, No. CV F 08-1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 291118 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2011)

Nature of Case: Violations of their free speech rights and violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

SPM Resorts, Inc. v. Diamond Resorts Mgmt., Inc., 65 So.3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted certiorari review and quashed order for plaintiff to pay half the cost of inspection of its own computers where the court reasoned that ?[t]o place a substantial financial burden on a party relating to the production of its adversary?s discovery request does nothing more than require a party to fund its adversaries litigation? and where the order was ?unreasonable and unduly oppressive and [wa]s a departure from the essential requirements of the law.?

Nature of Case: Interference with business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Computer inspection

Kermode v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., No. 3:09-CV-584-DPJ-FKB, 2011 WL 2619096 (S.D. Miss. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly spoliated emails and where, if the emails had existed, they would have been automatically deleted prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve and thus would not have been lost in bad faith; court?s analysis included discussion of trigger of duty to preserve and reasoned that meetings between accused professor and his department head and/or program director regarding alleged unwanted interactions with student did not trigger university?s duty to preserve because there was no evidence to suggest that either the department head or program director should have reasonably anticipated litigation at that time (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 for proposition that ?Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm wide duty to-preserve.?)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Archive - December 1, 2011