December 1, 2012 – Page 20 – Electronic Discovery Law

Tracy v. NVR, Inc., No. 04-CV-6541L, 2012 WL 1067889 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought to compel production of defendant?s litigation hold and a list of its recipients, court identified the underlying question as whether defendant?s duty to preserve extended to all potential opt-in plaintiffs and found that plaintiffs? significant delay in moving for conditional certification and the indirect nature of the evidence sought distinguished the case from Pippins v. KPMG and that plaintiffs failed to make the necessary preliminary showing of spoliation (which would justify production of the litigation hold notice) because they did not establish ?that documents that should have been preserved? were lost or destroyed; court granted defendant?s motion for sanctions for opt-in plaintiff?s spoliation of hard copy evidence (originals of a calendar indicating her daily activities, two disparate copies of which had been produced) and ordered that she be precluded from testifying as to her daily work activities during a three year period

Nature of Case: FLSA Class action

Electronic Data Involved: litigation hold notice, hard copy calendar

Matteo v. Kohl?s Dept. Store, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 830 (RJS), 2012 WL 760317 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for defendant?s loss of potentially relevant video surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to articulate how the tape would depict anything not already represented in available still photos and thus did not establish that the tape was sufficiently relevant to warrant the requested sanction; court ordered plaintiff was entitled to attorneys? fees and costs for the motion and for her efforts to determine whether the accident had been recorded

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Stanfill v. Talton, No. 5:10-CV-255(MTT), 2012 WL 1035385 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved only portions of a relevant video tape and allowed the remainder to be recorded over, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions because plaintiff did not establish that a duty to preserve existed or, if it did, that it was owed to the plaintiff and because the level of culpability with which the video was lost did not support a spoliation sanction in the 11th circuit

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of defendant in jail

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Frye v. Baptist Mem?l Hosp., No. 07-2708, 2012 WL 1022034 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: District Court approved recovery of costs related to ?OCR Capture?

Nature of Case: Taxable costs

Electronic Data Involved: OCR

Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 0160(JMO)(THK), 2012 WL 651536 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found inadvertent production of partially privileged email constituted waiver where, despite reasonable efforts to prevent production, defendants allowed questioning regarding the email at deposition and did not realize the email was privileged and request its return until months later (when preparing for a separate deposition) and thus ?did not act promptly to rectify the disclosure?

Nature of Case: FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Firestone v. Hawker Beechcraft Int. Serv. Co., No. 10-1404-JWL, 2012 WL 899270 (D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions resulting from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of a number of USB devices allegedly attached to plaintiff?s work laptop where defendant failed to establish: 1) that plaintiff was responsible for attaching the devices, 2) that plaintiff removed or copied any proprietary information, or 3) that plaintiff then destroyed the devices while under a duty to preserve them

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: USB devices

Tucker v. Amer. Int?l Group, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-1499 (CSH), 2012 WL 902930 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection of third party?s electronic records where the subpoenas seeking access was overly broad, where the existence of additional responsive information was speculative, where the information sought was cumulative of information obtained elsewhere, and where conducting the requested search would result in a significant burden to a non-party

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages from former employer’s insurers

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: 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.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Vendor charges related to electronic discovery

Vanliner Ins. Co. v. ABF Freight Syst., Inc., No. 5:11-cv-122-Oc-10TBS, 2012 WL 750743 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that the alleged spoliator had no notice of the potential relevance of the allegedly spoliated data and that the information?namely maintenance records?was available elsewhere, court concluded that he moving party failed to establish that the data at issue was ?crucial? to its case and denied motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Engine related data from Electronic Control Module (e.g., the speed of the tractor/trailer, the rotation of RPMs of the engine)

Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, No. 10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2012 WL 777500 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant?s responses to discovery were incomplete, court ordered defendant to ?proceed with the forensic search of their computer systems using protocols agreed upon by the parties? but declined to compel defendant to bear the cost of the examination until final costs were known; defendant was also ordered to institute a litigation hold where defendant?s deposition testimony established that none had previously been issued

Nature of Case: Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2012