Archive: December 1, 2015

1
Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)
2
In re Milo?s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, No. 12-1011, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 1650963 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2015)
3
Melissa ?G? v. N. Babylon Union Free School Dist., No. 36209/2006, 2015 WL 1727598 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2015)
4
Perez v. Metro Dairy Corp., No. 13 CV 2109(RML), 2015 WL 1535296 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015)
5
Davenport v. Charter Comm?cns., LLC, No. 2015 WL 1286372 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2015)
6
Superior Performers Inc. v. Meaike, No. 1:13CV1149, 2015 WL 471429 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2015)
7
Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., No. 14-cv-2634(JFB)(SIL), 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015)
8
Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)
9
Case Citation: Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So.3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015).
10
Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV214-075, 2015 WL 171236 (S.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2015)

Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)

Key Insight: Where ?Defendants provided Plaintiff with fully searchable documents, sortable by metadata fields, in a folder structure organized by custodian,? the court found this was ?sufficient to satisfy the requirements for document production of ESI under Rule 34? and declined to compel Defendants to provide an index

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death during medical procedure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Milo?s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, No. 12-1011, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 1650963 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2015)

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of all of Plaintiff?s Facebook materials, the court found ?nothing improper? in Plaintiff?s redaction of irrelevant information from her prior Facebook production, distinguishing the present case from Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2011) in which the court compelled production of Plaintiff?s username and password, and reasoned, in part, that Plaintiff had already provided Facebook information relevant to the case and that Defendant failed to show that further production would result in more relevant information or that Plaintiff?s counsel?s assessment of relevance was questionable

Nature of Case: Claims related to harm to pet from jerky treats

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

Melissa ?G? v. N. Babylon Union Free School Dist., No. 36209/2006, 2015 WL 1727598 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2015)

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought production of Plaintiff?s Facebook account (?all postings, status reports, e-mails, photographs and videos posted on her web page to date?) and supported their position with evidence taken from the public content of Plaintiff?s Facebook page, the court acknowledged defendants? obligation to ?establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s Facebook account? that is contradictory to Plaintiff?s alleged claims and that the obligation was met and, reasoning that ?[i]n discovery matters, counsel for the producing party is the judge of relevance in the first instance,? ordered Plaintiff to print and retain all of her Facebook account?s contents and ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to review Plaintiff?s Facebook postings and to produce all that was relevant; the court acknowledged the ?reasonable expectation of privacy attached? to one-on-one messaging and indicated that such messages need not be reviewed ?absent any evidence that such routine communications with family and friends contain information that is material and necessary to the defense.?

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from sexual contact with a teacher

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

Perez v. Metro Dairy Corp., No. 13 CV 2109(RML), 2015 WL 1535296 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs in this collective action sought spoliation sanctions for Defendants? failure to produce certain relevant evidence, including payroll records, W-2s, cashier sheets, etc. Defendants objected to the motion on the grounds that ?all of their books, records and computers were seized? pursuant to the court?s order in a different case and that there was no time to make any copies or back ups. Accordingly, the court reasoned that Defendants had not destroyed their records and found that ?[u]nder the specific circumstances of this case ? Defendants did not have an obligation to copy their books and records before complying with the court?s order.? Plaintiffs? motion for sanctions was denied.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records (payroll, W-2s etc.)

Superior Performers Inc. v. Meaike, No. 1:13CV1149, 2015 WL 471429 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2015)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s agent deleted an original voicemail from his phone by way of a factory reset but had produced a copy and also claimed to have transferred the voicemail to his new phone and where Defendants sought sanctions and argued that the deletion would prevent them from showing the voicemail was fabricated, as they suspected, the court declined to impose sanctions for the alleged fabrication, despite evidence the presentation of evidence that could lead to that conclusion, but did order that Plaintiff be prevented from using the voicemail at trial as a sanction for spoliation, reasoning that although the voicemail was not on one of Plaintiff?s phones (but rather on its agent?s), it ?likely? had a duty to preserve the evidence and that Plaintiff did not attempt to provide access to the phone or provide notice of the voicemail?s possible destruction

Nature of Case: Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail

Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., No. 14-cv-2634(JFB)(SIL), 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendants? motion to compel Plaintiff?s cell phone records for the purpose of determining her activities during work hours and ordered the production of a sampling of such records from a two year period with an invitation for defendants to renew their application if the sampling provided probative evidence; court denied defendants? motion to compel social media content for the purpose of proving that Plaintiff was engaged in non-work related activities while she claimed to be working where defendants offered little more than their hope that they would find something of relevance but ordered production of a sampling of content from Plaintiff?s Facebook account for the purpose of determining her emotional state, limited to the production of content referencing claimed emotional distress and any related treatment and any alternative sources for the alleged distress

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (FLSA, NYLL)

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone records, Social media (Facebook)

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Case Citation: Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So.3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015).

Key Insight: Circuit Court denied petition for certiorari relief to quash Trial Court order compelling discovery of photographs from Plaintiff?s Facebook account, finding no departure from the essential requirements of law, because the photographs were ?powerfully relevant to the damage issues in the lawsuit,? Plaintiff?s privacy interest in them were minimal because ?photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless of any privacy settings that the user may have established,? and the Stored Communications Act ?does not apply to individuals who the use the communications services provided.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook/social media photographs

Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV214-075, 2015 WL 171236 (S.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2015)

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions after Defendant stated in deposition they took accident scene photographs, but did not provide the photographs and stated all accident photographs had been provided. Plaintiff claimed Defendant?s sole possession was circumstantial evidence Defendant acted affirmatively in destroying the photographs. However, Court would not infer bad faith because it was possible ?the photographs were lost or destroyed haphazardly,? and concluded circumstantial evidence cannot prove bad faith ?without any evidence that the loss or destruction of the photographs was, or could only be, due to a deliberate, intentional act of Defendant or its agent.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs of slip and fall scene

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