June 3, 2021 – Electronic Discovery Law

Haywood v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions against defendants, claiming the defendants’ production of ESI relating to the treatment of plaintiff’s mental illness was produced in PDF as opposed to its native Excel format and not reasonably usable. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering defendants to produce the ESI in their native Excel format and awarded plaintiff’s counsel $25,000 in fees. The court rejected defendants’ argument that it converted the Excel data into PDF because it was required under HIPAA and Illinois law given the protective order in place. The court further found the ESI in PDF form was not “reasonably usable” under Rule 34(b). There is missing data and text, and it eliminated plaintiff’s ability to sort and organize the data contained in the spreadsheets. Quoting another court’s decision, the court noted: “One of the unique strengths of Excel software is the ability to implement calculations and formulae that are not evident in a PDF version[.]” This forced plaintiff to sort more than 270,000 pages of information, much of which is either redacted or difficult to read.

Nature of Case: Prisoner Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Prisoner Records

Case Summary

AnywhereCommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: The court granted reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of documents in the possession of a corporate defendant in France. In a prior order, the court found that the GDPR did not preclude the court from ordering defendants to produce evidence, but based the order on plaintiffs’ representation that much of the requested information was located in the U.S. and therefore in the possession of domestic defendants. Thus, the court bifurcated its analysis to exclude any documents in the possession of French defendants. On reconsideration, plaintiffs claimed the important and relevant documents were located in France. Applying the factors from Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442(1)(c), the court found they weighed in favor of disclosure, together with the entry of a protective order that would protect France’s interests under the GDPR.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

Case Summary

Archive - June 3, 2021