Archive: December 2016

1
Prometheus Labs. Inc. v. Roxane Labs. Inc., Nos. 11-230 (KM), 11-1241 (KM), 2016 WL 1559144 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2016)
2
First Amer. Title Ins. Co. v. N.W. Title Ins. Agency, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00229, 2016 WL 4548398 (D. Utah Aug. 31, 2016)
3
Marshall v. Dentfirst, P.C., No. 1:14-cv-2421-WSD, 2016 WL 1222270 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2016)
4
Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 3183, 2016 WL 1070828 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2016)
5
Keim v. ADF Midatlantic LLC, No. 12-CV-80577-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2016 WL 7048835 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016)
6
Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2016 WL 5791210 (N.C. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)
7
Ferring B.V. v. Fera Pharm. LLC, CV 1304640(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 5396620 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2016)
8
Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)
9
Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)
10
Konica Minolta Bus. Sols., U.S.A., Inc. v. Lowery Corp., No. 15-cv-11253, 2016 WL 4537847 (Aug. 31, 2016)

Prometheus Labs. Inc. v. Roxane Labs. Inc., Nos. 11-230 (KM), 11-1241 (KM), 2016 WL 1559144 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2016)

Key Insight: Citing Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), the court declined to tax costs for all ESI costs where relevant invoices ?did not clearly show any services performed to create a readable format,? where OCR charges are not taxable, where there were no entries in the relevant invoices for ?scanning hard copy documents or converting native files to TIFF format? (both taxable costs) and where it was not clear from the invoices that the services were conducted for Plaintiff?s benefit, rather than Defendant?s; court rejected argument that OCR should be taxed because of the parties? agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

First Amer. Title Ins. Co. v. N.W. Title Ins. Agency, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00229, 2016 WL 4548398 (D. Utah Aug. 31, 2016)

Key Insight: Court concluded that Defendants ?taking steps? to start a competing company even if it was known that starting the company ?would be contentious and actively opposed? was insufficient to establish imminent litigation triggering a duty to preserve (note that imminence is the test in the 10th Cir.); court assessed requests for sanctions as to multiple sources of ESI and largely denied those motions absent evidence of prejudice or that the information could not be restored or replaced but did impose sanctions for non-party employee of Defendants? loss of potentially relevant ESI and hard copy taken from Plaintiff (both assessed ?under the same rubric of Rule 37?) and ordered that the parties would be permitted to present evidence of the spoliation to the jury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI & hardcopy

Marshall v. Dentfirst, P.C., No. 1:14-cv-2421-WSD, 2016 WL 1222270 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2016)

Key Insight: Plaintiff seeks sanctions for Defendant allegedly failing to preserve ESI including browsing history, emails and pretreatment documents on Plaintiff?s work computer. The court quotes Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Treadwell, 734 S.E.2d 818, 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012), ?it is axiomatic that in order for there to be spoliation, the evidence in question must have existed and been in the control of a party.? Plaintiff failed to show that the alleged spoliated information existed at the time Defendant reasonably could have anticipated litigation but that the Defendant failed to preserve it. The court continued its analysis, finding that ?even if the evidence existed at the time Defendant had a duty to preserve it,? Plaintiff failed to show prejudice (which could have been mitigated through depositions) or bad faith on the part of Defendant. The court denied Plaintiff?s motion.

Electronic Data Involved: Internet browsing history, emails

Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 3183, 2016 WL 1070828 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2016)

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s request for $16,200.00 in costs charged by third party vendor who assisted in email production, including $16,000 for ?Digital Tech Time per GB: Tiff Conversion, OCR, Endorse & Export for Searchable PDF,? court concluded that converting files to TIFF or PDF was the equivalent of ?making copies? and was recoverable but that costs for making a document searchable are not recoverable; where Defendant failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the costs for each service provided, court reduced the requested recovery and awarded $4,000 for the ?Tiff conversion portion of the invoice? and also awarded $200 for the cost of two hard drives utilized for the email production

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs ( 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4))

Keim v. ADF Midatlantic LLC, No. 12-CV-80577-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2016 WL 7048835 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016)

Key Insight: Defendant brought a motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(1) alleging Plaintiff failed to preserve text messages on his cell phone. The text messages at issue were dated in February and March of 2011, while Plaintiff admitted that he anticipated bringing suit on or before October 1, 2011. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that ?he deletes most of his text messages and does not ?keep them around that long,?? and after carefully reviewing Plaintiff?s deposition transcript, it was ?clear to the court that Plaintiff is utterly confused and uncertain of anything related to the existence or deletion of the February to March 2011 text messages.? The court found that (i) it was possible that the text messages at issue were deleted before a duty to preserve arose; (ii) the ESI was not ?lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it;? and (iii) the evidence could not be discovered from other sources. Defendant?s motion for sanctions was denied.

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2016 WL 5791210 (N.C. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)

Key Insight: Where an initial search of file names on a legacy drive (as opposed to the contents of the drive) did not identify ten responsive documents that were eventually produced after the close of discovery and a mere 7 days prior to trial, the court found that the search was an unreasonable inquiry under Rule 26(g) citing counsel?s failure to guide or monitor the employee conducting the search; the at-issue employee?s lack of experience conducting searches of large document repositories and the failure of counsel to ask the IT department to assist; and the objective unreasonableness of the search in light of the initial failure to search within the contents of the legacy drive and imposed monetary sanctions to address Plaintiff?s increased efforts as a result of the failure to timely produce the documents but reduced the award by 1/3 where Plaintiff would have had to expend some of the at-issue resources regardless and where Plaintiff failed to follow up when the employee who conducted the search indicated he did not know if he had searched within the files themselves

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from legacy drive

Ferring B.V. v. Fera Pharm. LLC, CV 1304640(SJF)(AKT), 2016 WL 5396620 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2016)

Key Insight: Where Defendant responded to court?s inquiries regarding its search efforts and marked its search terms and a ?non-exhaustive list of topic areas of documents produced to Plaintiff? as attorney work product, court reasoned that ?this is precisely the type information which is generally shared by counsel in complex civil litigation cases so that they may reach an agreement regarding the scope of production of ESI? and that ?[t]he norm in these cases is that counsel for both sides review and agree in advance on the parameters of the search, on any search terms to be used, and on the specific custodians whose files are to be searched? and ordered Defendant to file unredacted copies on ECF, but indicated that they would be under seal to protect information covered by the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)

Key Insight: Where the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant?s request for forensic inspection be granted, to be undertaken by a neutral third party, in light of the fact that the information sought ?seem[ed] germane? and because despite ?hesitancy to allow on site inspections ? the level of distrust among the parties ? plead[ed] for such intervention,? the District Court overruled Defendant?s objections, noting that through their distrust and lack of cooperation ?[t]he parties and counsel themselves have created an atmosphere that warrants extraordinary circumstances and establishes good cause for an on-site inspection of Champion?s electronically stored information? and set forth a process by which the inspection would take place, including that the costs would be shifted to the requesting party ?given the nature of the accessibility of the [ESI] sought? (i.e., the information sought included backup and deleted material)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of ESI, including backup and deleted material

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)

Key Insight: Where Defendant admitted to deleting emails while aware of potential litigation but claimed he thought the emails were backed up and that he never deleted anything from Plaintiff?s server, the court called the evidence ?troubling? but declined to impose spoliation sanctions because the evidence of bad faith was insufficient, citing in pat Defendant?s own equivocation for why he deleted the emails and his admitted practice of deleting emails in the ordinary course of business and the fact that the emails he admitted to forwarding to a personal account and then deleting were eventually produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Konica Minolta Bus. Sols., U.S.A., Inc. v. Lowery Corp., No. 15-cv-11253, 2016 WL 4537847 (Aug. 31, 2016)

Key Insight: Assessing motion for sanctions, court found that Plaintiff established Defendants? duty to preserve (preservation requests were sent to all defendants) and that ESI was lost but found that further discovery was needed to address whether two of four ?predicate elements? of Rule 37(e) were met, namely whether reasonable steps were taken to preserve and whether the lost ESI could be restored or replaced through additional discovery, reasoning that ?[a]bsent sufficient proof that reasonable steps were not taken, KMBS is not entitled to relief under 37(e), even if it is shown that the ESI was lost. Sanctions are not automatic? and that ?[f]urther, a party cannot be sanctioned where the ability exists to restore or replace the ESI from other sources.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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