Archive - November 2017

1
Knight Capital Partners Corp. v. Henkel AG & Company, KGaA, No. 16-12022 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2017).
2
Holick v. Burkhart ( No. 16-1188-JTM (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2017), 2017)
3
Coward v. Forestar Realty, Inc., 4:15-cv-0245-HLM (N.D. Georgia, Rome Division, 2017)
4
Gottesman v. Santana, No. 16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017)
5
Winfield v. City of New York, No. 1:15-cv-05236-LTS-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017)
6
Washington v. Rounds, No. PWG-16-320 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017)
7
Marsteller v. Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, et al. – 3:17-cv-01371 (District of Connecticut, 2017)
8
IBM Corp. v. Naganayagam, No. 15 Civ. 7991 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y., 2017)
9
Thompson Auto. Labs, LLC v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., No. 15-cv-282-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2017)
10
Court Rejects Propriety of Non-Responsive Redactions, Compels Production

Knight Capital Partners Corp. v. Henkel AG & Company, KGaA, No. 16-12022 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2017).

Key Insight: German defendant objected to discovery on basis of German Data Protection Laws. Court ruled that legal claim outweighed data protection.

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business, breach of non-disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: German Business Records

Keywords: foreign company, data protection

View Case Opinion

Holick v. Burkhart ( No. 16-1188-JTM (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2017), 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff did not specify whether any documents were being withheld in the course of making objections to discovery motions

Nature of Case: libel, assault, slander

Electronic Data Involved: documents and communications posted or stored on social media, e-mails

Keywords: “facially overbroad”, “anti-abortion”, “nearly two-decade time frame”, “provide any responsive information for the past seven (7) years”

View Case Opinion

Coward v. Forestar Realty, Inc., 4:15-cv-0245-HLM (N.D. Georgia, Rome Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs unable to access password protected video camera offered hard drive to Defendants; Court held inaccessible videos were spoliated.

Nature of Case: property damage claim

Electronic Data Involved: videos

Keywords: spoliation, prejudice, sanctions, adverse inference, attorney’s fees

View Case Opinion

Gottesman v. Santana, No. 16-cv-2902 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017)

Key Insight: statute of limitations, proportionality

Nature of Case: copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: financial information

Keywords: meeting of the minds, statute of limitations, undue burden, amount in controversy

View Case Opinion

Winfield v. City of New York, No. 1:15-cv-05236-LTS-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017)

Key Insight: Methodologies behind TAR are privileged (especially the seed set), the court may also perform in camera review to determine the competency of TAR if necessary, poor TAR practices may allow opposing counsel to set parameters

Nature of Case: Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Keywords: TAR, FHA, discrimination, predictive coding, in camera review

View Case Opinion

Washington v. Rounds, No. PWG-16-320 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017)

Key Insight: Spoliation. Court ordered discovery to determine if failure to preserve relevant evidence, and if so, whether 37(e) sanctions are warranted.

Nature of Case: civil action under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983

Electronic Data Involved: prisoner surveillance video

Keywords: Spoliation, failure to preserve relevant evidence.

View Case Opinion

Marsteller v. Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, et al. – 3:17-cv-01371 (District of Connecticut, 2017)

Key Insight: scope of discovery

Nature of Case: sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: authorization for medical records and access to social media accounts

Keywords: social media accounts, authorization for medical records, emotional distress

View Case Opinion

IBM Corp. v. Naganayagam, No. 15 Civ. 7991 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: e-mails, electronic document

Keywords: spoliation, adverse inference, intent to deprive, 37(e)(2), prejudice 37(e)(1)

View Case Opinion

Thompson Auto. Labs, LLC v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., No. 15-cv-282-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2017)

Key Insight: relevancy

Nature of Case: breach of contract, trademark infringement, false advertisement, unfair and deceptive trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: electronic documents

Keywords: relevance, broadly construed, breach of warranty

View Case Opinion

Court Rejects Propriety of Non-Responsive Redactions, Compels Production

IDC Fin. Pub., Inc. v. Bonddesk Grp., LLC, No. 15-cv-1085-pp, 2017 WL 4863202 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2017)

In this case, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of over 600 documents previously produced with extensive non-responsive redactions applied. Defendants argued that the redactions were necessary to protect confidential business information that was not relevant to the underlying dispute and cited In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., 14-24009-CV-MORENO, 2016 WL 1460143 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2016), in support of their position. In Takata, the court allowed certain non-responsive redactions “because of its concern that the documents contained competitively sensitive materials that may have been exposed to the public, despite protective orders.” In the present case, the court cited Burris v. Versa Prods., Inc., No. 07-3938 (JRT/JJK), 2013 WL 608742 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2013) for the propositions that non-responsive redactions are not explicitly supported by the federal rules and that allowing such redactions has the potential for abuse, where parties would be incentivized to “hide as much as they dare.” The court further reasoned that Defendants did not assert any privilege or provide a “compelling reason” for their “extensive” redactions and that they failed to explain why the existing protective order did not provide adequate protection. Thus, the court concluded that it “[did] not see a compelling reason to alter the traditionally broad discovery allowed by the rules by letting the defendants unilaterally redact large portions of their responsive documents on relevance grounds” and granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

A copy of the court’s brief order is available here.

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