eDiscovery Import – Page 111 – Electronic Discovery Law

N.V.E. Inc. v. Palmeroni, No. 06-5455 (ES), 2011 WL 4407428 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions (in an amount to be established) where plaintiff was grossly negligent in its preservation, review and collection of documents, including by failing to issue a litigation hold and because of counsel?s failure to supervise the review and collection of documents, and where such failures resulted in the loss of relevant evidence; court denied request for preclusion of evidence where defendant failed to establish that plaintiff acted in bad faith; Motion for Reconsideration denied by District Judge 2012 WL 2020242 (D.N.J. June 5, 2012)

Baisden v. I?m Ready Prods., 793 F. Supp. 2d 970 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing ?costs related to electronic scanning and imaging of documents,? court noted that defendants provided no authority recognizing that such expenditures were taxable pursuant to ? 1920 and thus declined to award them

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Bell v. Callaway Partners, LLC, 1:06-CV-1993-CC, 2011 WL 13175079 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs for expenses Defendants incurred for document scanning or imaging given that the parties agreed Defendants would produce documents in electronic format. The Court declined to allow recovery of costs for services and products other than the reproduction of documents such as Bates labeling, OCR formatting, CD creation, CD archival and PDF to TIFF Conversion stating that although such services and products assist in document review, they ?extend beyond mere copying and were unnecessary.?

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Corbello v. Devito, 2010 WL 4703519 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2010); 2011 WL 1466605 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants had already produced ?hundreds of scripts and draft scripts? in .pdf format, a hardcopy notebook of page changes to the script, and the only two comments to the script made using the ?notes function? the Screenwriter software at issue, the court found that the production of scripts and drafts in .pdf was a reasonably usable format and that ?additional production of [the] materials in native format would be an unnecessary burden and unjustifiable waste of time and resources? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; in second opinion, court reconsidered prior approval or production in .pdf format and ordered production in native format

Electronic Data Involved: Native production of all changes made to the relevant script for all productions

Doyle v. Gonzales, 2011 WL 611825 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a small town with ?limited financial and technological resources? sought a protective order to allow phased discovery of ESI in light of the alleged burden and expense of the requested discovery, the court granted in part the defendant?s motion and crafted a protective order which established the search terms to be employed and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to provide suggestions and which provided that if the search returned an unreasonable amount of documents that plaintiff?s counsel should assist in ?restructuring the search? to reduce that number

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

JFB Hart Coatings, Inc. v. AM Gen., LLC, 764 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found it ?more likely than not? that plaintiff?s fabrication of an exhibit was in bad faith and necessitated sanctions and ordered an evidentiary hearing where evidence revealed that plaintiff had significantly altered evidence and subsequently provided misleading information to opposing counsel and the court regarding the same

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Johnson Electric N. Am., Inc., No. 09-CV-11783, 2011 WL 1002835 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered production of confirmation the locations searched for responsive ESI; production of plaintiff?s backup policies and tracking records; production of plaintiff?s document retention policy; and production of a data map to show the age and location of data on plaintiff?s systems

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to plaintiff’s computer systems

In re Facebook PPC Adver. Litig., No. C09-03043 JF (HRL), 2011 WL 1324516 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite Facebook?s assertions that an ESI protocol was unnecessary and that there was no basis to require rigid up-front requirements, court cited the ?clear thrust of discovery-related rules, case law, and commentary? suggesting that communication among counsel is critical and ordered parties to meet and confer to establish protocol to establish the format of production, search terms, etc.; court ordered re-production of any ESI already produced in non-searchable formats and prohibited Facebook?s further use of Watchdox.com to make ESI available to plaintiffs where the method was unduly burdensome to plaintiffs (in light of Facebook?s control of the documents, ability to track what was reviewed, etc.) and where parties previously agreed to a protective order which provided sufficient protection to the documents at issue

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Quality Inv. Props. Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Electric, Inc., No. C 09-5376 LHK (PSG), 2011 WL 1364005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties failed to meet and confer Pursuant to Rule 26(f) and thus failed to agree on format of production, and where plaintiff?s production was not in the format maintained in the usual course of business or organized and labeled according to the categories in the discovery requests, court ordered re-production of plaintiff?s ESI in a format agreed upon by the parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Author - eDiscovery Import