December 1, 2012 – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E&J Gallo Winery, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-326-BR, 2012 WL 3202677 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s efforts to recover costs related to ?technical, specialized services that were needed in order to ?collect, process, preserve, track, copy to digital format, and ultimately produce? the large amount of electronically stored information (?ESI?) that was utilized in the discovery process in this case,? the court adopted the Third Circuit?s reasoning in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp and thus determined that ?a prevailing party may recover costs associated with copying or duplicating its files, but it may not receive reimbursement for any other ESI-related expenses?; in the present case the court found that ?the only tasks that involve copying are the conversion of native files to TIFF and PDF formats and the transfer of files onto CDs?

Nature of Case: Unfair and deceptive trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: ESI taxable costs

Davis v. Rouse, No. WDQ-08-cv-3106, 2012 WL 3059569 (D. Md. July 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant produced more than 61,000 pages of emails but, when faced with Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, could not explain how the search for ESI had been conducted (by a vendor) and subsequently produced only 11,411 pages of emails after being ordered to re-run the search, the court imposed sanctions of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff?s counsel to review the initial large production of emails containing many non-responsive documents and found counsel for plaintiff was also entitled to recover ?some proportional and reasonable? attorneys? fees and costs for litigating the underlying motion for sanctions which brought the overproduction to light

Nature of Case: Allegations of assault pursuant to 42 USC 1983

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tabon v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Health Sys. No. 10-cv-2781, 2012 WL 2953216 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Investigation file, original medical records, “comments section” of medical records from computer system

Shutterfly Inc. v. Foreverarts, Inc., No. CR 12-3671 SI, 2012 WL 2911887 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted ex parte motion for temporary injunction prohibiting destruction of relevant ESI where plaintiff showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, that it would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction if defendants were to destroy evidence, and that the prohibition against destruction of evidence would not burden defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Blount v. Tate, No. 7:11CV00091, 2012 WL 4341053 (W.D. Va. Aug 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s allegations of spoliation for defendants? loss of potentially relevant video footage, court declined to impose sanctions because it could not find that defendants had the necessary culpable mind reasoning that 1) defendants? production of other relevant video footage of the same event and another, similar event, contradicted plaintiff?s claims that defendants feared the video would cause them to lose the lawsuit, 2) that ?digital information can be destroyed or hopelessly misplaced in a data base at the touch of a button, without warning or recourse, and the prison?s system for preserving footage included three transition points when a technician?s inadvertent error could have destroyed or misplaced the? relevant footage, and 3) that the footage of the incident involving the plaintiff was not the only footage lost, suggesting that ?the event causing that loss was not intended to harm [Plaintiff?s] case?

Nature of Case: Eight Amendment violations, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Camcorder footage

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that the deliberative process privilege was subject to a timeliness requirement and, where government asserted the possibility that documents used at deposition were subject to the deliberative process privileged at the end of a deposition but waited ?roughly six months? to definitively assert the privilege and another ?nearly four months? to communicate that assertion to Plaintiff, the court held the privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of Cost Accounting Standards

Electronic Data Involved: String of emails

King v. Rozek Co., No. 11-cv-01685-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 2884788 (D. Colo. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, based on discrepancies in certain witnesses? testimony, Plaintiff believed that relevant investigation notes/computer journal entries were created on a date later than the date alleged by the defendant, and where the creation date was relevant to the issues in the case, the court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel a forensic investigation of the computer on which the evidence was created, but sua sponte issued a protective order that would allow Plaintiff?s forensic investigator to make a mirror image of the at-issue computer but would limit his investigation to the question of when the notes were made or modified and which prohibited the investigator from accessing or viewing information not relevant to that discreet issue

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

YCB Int?l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., No. 09-CV-7221, 2012 WL 3069683 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs failed to take appropriate steps to preserve information, including failing to suspend their document destruction policy and failing to issue a litigation hold, which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents (but, as the court concluded, not ESI), the court declined to impose drastic sanctions but recommended that the jury be instructed about the failure to preserve (but not instructed to draw any inferences based on that destruction) and recommended that plaintiffs be ordered to pay $1000 to defendant to ?partially compensate? it for attorneys? fees incurred by its motion and to pay $1000 to the court clerk

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy inspection reports

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

Lakes Gas Co. v. Clark Oil Trading Co., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (D. Kan. June 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In a brief discussion of spoliation, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions where, despite the fact that it ?seemed clear that there was some loss of evidence ? in the form of email and/or ?instant messages? ? at a time [Plaintiff] knew litigation was imminent,? the evidence suggested that the loss was inadvertent, there was no claim of bad faith or evidence to support such a finding, defendant?s claims of prejudice were largely speculative and defendant did not aggressively pursue the issue of spoliation; court?s analysis stated that ?in these circumstances? (referencing apparent inadvertence of the loss and lack of a claim of bad faith), ?the court looks to the culpability of those involved and the relevance of the proof to the issues at hand?

Nature of Case: Action to recover payment for propane transfers based on conversion and unjust enrichment theories

Electronic Data Involved: Email and/or instant messages

Archive - December 1, 2012