Archive: December 1, 2015

1
Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00874, 2015 WL 5098952 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2015)
2
DeCastro v. Kavadia, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 4619914 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015)
3
Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 11 CV 2450, 2015 WL 351244 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2015)
4
Balance Point Divorce Funding LLC v. Srantom, No. 13-cv-1049 (PKC), 2015 WL 997718 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2015)
5
Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)
6
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med., Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB), 2015 WL 4479147 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2015)
7
In re VERP Inv., LLC, 457 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)
8
CSP Techs, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie AG, No. 4:11-cv-0029-RLY-WGH, 2015 WL 2405528 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2015)
9
Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)
10
Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 14CV208-L (BLM), 2015 WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015)

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00874, 2015 WL 5098952 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2015)

Key Insight: On motion for reconsideration of three discovery orders, the court found no error in the lower court?s determination that Plaintiff?s admitted contemplation of litigation was sufficient to trigger her obligation to preserve, noting the lower court?s reliance on case law that ?the knowledge of a potential ? claim is deemed sufficient to impose a duty to preserve evidence?; court indicated that evidence contradicting Plaintiff?s claim that a third party still maintained the at-issue records was sufficient to allow the court to revisit the issue and to find that plaintiff acted in bad faith and also noted that in the Third Circuit, bad faith was not required to impose an adverse inference; addressing prejudice, court dismissed the proposition that Defendant?s access to at-issue evidence years earlier was sufficient to undercut any prejudice, noting that Defendant?s experts had not had access to the evidence; court found no clear error in the imposition of monetary sanctions for spoliation of evidence prior to trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

DeCastro v. Kavadia, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 4619914 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015)

Key Insight: For defendant?s intentional deletion of emails using cleaning software and misrepresentations intended to cover up the same as well as defendant?s failure to produce documents over which he was found to maintain control and misrepresentations related to the same, the magistrate judge recommended a permissive adverse inference and that defendant and counsel, who ?exacerbated? the effects of defendant?s misconduct through incomplete or misleading representations to the court, be jointly and severally liable for plaintiff?s attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions; district court rejected objections to the recommendations and adopted them in full

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 11 CV 2450, 2015 WL 351244 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2015)

Key Insight: Regarding the taxation of e-Discovery costs, court found that costs ?associated with the conversion of ESI into a readable format, such as scanning or otherwise converting a paper version to an electronic version or converting native files to TIFF files … are compensable under ? 1920(4). But costs related to the ?gathering, preserving, processing, searching, culling, and extracting of ESI simply do not amount to ?making copies? and are thus not taxable.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable e-Discovery Cost

Balance Point Divorce Funding LLC v. Srantom, No. 13-cv-1049 (PKC), 2015 WL 997718 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2015)

Key Insight: Court approved taxation of costs related to TIFF conversion and ?uploading responsive documents through the use of a File Transfer Protocol,? but declined to allow costs related to ?Processing Initial Dataset,? ?Culling and Posting Resulting Data Subset,? ?Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Processing,? ?ID/Conversion of Non-searchable Docs to Searchable,? ?Project Management,? ?Hosting Active-Data,? and ?document unitization?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable e-Discovery costs

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re VERP Inv., LLC, 457 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion by ordering forensic examination of landlord?s hard drive where ?[t]he procedural protections identified in In re Weekley Homes require that ?the requesting party must show that the responding party has somehow defaulted in its obligation to search its records and produce the requested data,? and that ?the responding party?s production ?has been inadequate and that a search of the opponent?s [electronic storage device] could recover … relevant materials[],?? where the tenant provided no evidentiary basis for his suspicion that the at-issue invoices were falsified, and where the tenant ?did not put on any evidence demonstrating that the kind of information he sought could be retrieved by the examination ultimately ordered by the trial court and the record [wa]s devoid of any attempt by Nguyen to explain this search methodology except for his counsel?s explanation that the search would attempt to exclude communications with counsel?

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting-related ESI

CSP Techs, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie AG, No. 4:11-cv-0029-RLY-WGH, 2015 WL 2405528 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2015)

Key Insight: Court found Defendants were entitled to costs, including costs related to scanning, OCR bates labeling, and TIFF/PDF conversion but not costs associated with document collection, password recovery, searching, data hosting/electronic storage services and the fee for an e-discovery specialist

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)

Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

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