2022 – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

Arconic Corp. v. Novelis Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2022)

Feb 10 2022

Key Insight: The court denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal based on metadata in the court’s orders that suggested that the special master was the author of some of the court’s opinions in the case. Plaintiff claimed the author field on the metadata suggested the special master was the author of the court’s opinions but the court explained how this opinion was wrong. The author field of the metadata for a document created from a template will continue to reflect the name of the person who originally created the document unless that name is changed. The court did not change or remove the author field when using a template document that had previously been prepared in the case but acknowledged going forward it would revise the authorship data on its court orders as needed. Further, the court’s decisions demonstrate that the opinions and orders are those of the court, acting independently of the special master, based on the differences between the court’s decisions and the related R&Rs by the special master.

Nature of Case: Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Case Summary

Consultus, LLC v. CPC Commodities (W.D. Mo. 2022)

Feb 04 2022

Key Insight: Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ claims of privilege should be overruled due to the crime-fraud exception. Defendants withheld emails claiming work product and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs have not argued that the emails are not covered by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to assure that the “seal of secrecy” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications “made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime.” In order to avail itself of the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must satisfy a threshold showing of “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that the [party asserting the privilege] was engaged in intentional fraud and communicated with counsel in furtherance of the fraud.” The court found that plaintiffs’ assertions do not satisfy the threshold showing as they amount to conjecture since there is no other evidence that the communications were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Case Summary

In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Penn. 2022)

Jan 07 2022

Key Insight: This multidistrict litigation involves allegations that the defendants conspired to reduce supply and increase prices for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (“MDI”) and toluene diisocyanate (“TDI”), chemicals used in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and thermoplastic polyurethanes. The parties filed competing motions to compel regarding the use TAR and search terms. Plaintiffs moved to compel an order requiring the defendants to use plaintiff’s proposed search terms, or alternatively, to establish a process by which disputed search terms could be adjudicated. The E-Discovery Special Master made a recommendation to deny the motions and directed the parties to his prior report and recommendation on the parties’ TAR protocols to address concerns he raised their regarding the parties’ methodologies.

Nature of Case: Antitrust MDL

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Case Summary

Archive - 2022