December 1, 2014 – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Olney v. Job.com, No. 1:12-cv-01724-LJO-SKO, 2014 WL 5430350 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff willfully and deliberately spoliated relevant data on his computer through use of deletion programs after the duty to preserve had been triggered, magistrate judge declined to impose sanction of dismissal given that the interests of expeditious resolution had not been thwarted by plaintiff’s conduct, litigation had not been unnecessarily protracted, management of the court’s docket had not been disrupted, and although the spoliation had prejudiced defendants in presenting a full defense, a strongly worded adverse inference instruction was an alternative, less severe sanction that would adequately address defendants’ harm; court set out text of adverse inference instruction to be given to the jury and awarded defendants their reasonable attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Class action seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff’s computer hard drive

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 5859024 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted plaintiffs? motion for reconsideration, but adhered to its previous ruling denying plaintiffs? request that defendant merge two separate data compilations from two distinct data sources – one from a non-party and the other from defendant – to enable plaintiffs? experts to have a single ?pristine? data set to use in the case, as plaintiffs were not entitled to receive ESI in their preferred format nor were defendants required to create a document for production; however, because it struck the court that it would be in both parties? interests to have the data plaintiffs sought and for both parties? experts to work from the same data set, the court suggested that the parties cooperate in hiring a neutral third party to conduct the comparison, which would provide plaintiffs, to some extent, the data sought while at the same time prevent an attack on the data?s integrity

Nature of Case: Class action brought by auto body companies alleging that defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Estimating data from two sources

IQ Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., No. 01-13-00952-CV, 2014 WL 6601148 (Tex. App. Nov. 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where hard copy closing file itself was destroyed, but defendants electronically preserved the closing file in two different storage systems, FileStor and SureClose, appellate court found that trial court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Real estate dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Closing file, title commitment

E.E.O.C. v. Forge Ind. Staffing, Inc., No. 1:14-mc-00090-SEB-MJD, 2014 WL 6673574 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where former employee filed claim with EEOC alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, and EEOC issued a subpoena to employer staffing agency seeking information to determine how long the staffing agency had required applicants to waive statutorily protected statutes of limitations, court declined to enforce the subpoena, finding that the EEOC’s subpoena exceeded its authority in that the information sought went beyond the issues arising out of former employee?s individual charge; court further determined that the burden imposed on the staffing agency far exceeded the minimal relevance of the evidence sought, given that staffing agency processed 130,000 temporary employee applications during the time period covered by the subpoena, applications were not kept in a central repository or electronically, and compliance would require manual review of each employment application maintained in paper format at each of its ten office locations and would disrupt agency’s day-to-day operations

Nature of Case: Motion for enforcement of administrative subpoena issued to staffing agency relating to investigation of former employee’s claim of sexual harrassment and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of employment application form used by staffing agency between January 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014, including all pages of and revisions to each form

Espejo v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., No. 14-000095 HG-RLP, 2014 WL 6634492 (D. Haw. Nov. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff ran software to permanently erase all information on his computer then drilled a hole in his hard drive and threw it away, and completely erased and reformatted all data on recording device, and most of recordings produced by plaintiff had been edited, all at a time when plaintiff knew he had an obligation to preserve evidence, court found that plaintiff engaged in willful spoliation of highly relevant evidence, that plaintiff acted in bad faith, that defendants were severely prejudiced by the loss of evidence, that less drastic sanctions would not sufficiently compensate for plaintiff’s widespread destruction of evidence and that, given the extensive spoliation of relevant evidence by plaintiff, it would not be possible to fairly evaluate the case on the merits; court concluded that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction

Nature of Case: Retaliation and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer, email, recordings made by plaintiff of his interactions with other employees

Fog Cap Acceptance, Inc. v. Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc., No. 3:11-CV-724-PK, 2014 WL 6064217 (D. Or. Nov. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court concluded that, because plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence did not deprive defendant of any complete defense to any of plaintiff’s claims of liability, dismissal was inappropriate sanction; instead, appropriate sanction would be to instruct the jury that it could infer from plaintiff?s failure to preserve the hard drives and disks that they contained evidence favorable to defendant, and to exclude plaintiff?s proffered expert testimony regarding the likelihood that the unpreserved evidence contained usable software or source code; however, because court went on to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it denied defendant’s motion for sanctions as moot

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence, and violations of bailment

Electronic Data Involved: Source code, hard drives

Kelley v. Smith?s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00856-RCJ-CWH, 2014 WL 6474026 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Store video was not protected from production by the impeachment evidence exception because the video?s impeachment value was too closely linked to its substantive value, and the evidence the video offered could not be realistically confined to use for impeachment purposes only; court granted both plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the video and plaintiff?s motion for protective order, which protected plaintiff from being forced to submit to a deposition without first being able to view the video

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Store video containing footage of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL, 2014 WL 4079507 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In a lengthy decision, the Special Master recounted chronology of “extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI” by defendant and observed: “The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious.” The Special Master concluded that only case dispositive sanctions would fully protect plaintiffs from defendant’s willful discovery failures, and set out various recommendations including specific factual findings as to class certification and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada state wage and hour laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptops, personal mobile phones and BlackBerry devices, BlackBerry server, databases, SMS text messages, etc.

Archive - December 1, 2014