eDiscovery Import – Page 114 – Electronic Discovery Law

E.E.O.C. v. DHL Express, No. 10 C 6139, 2011 WL 6825516 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where DHL produced ?28,000 spreadsheets worth of information? with an index containing metadata for each spreadsheet and any emails to which the spreadsheets were attached but where plaintiff nonetheless claimed that the burden of sifting through the spreadsheets was unduly onerous and sought to compel production of information to identify each spreadsheet and that defendant organize them according to request, the court noted its authority under Rule 34 to impose requirements ?different from those in the rule? and ordered defendant to identify which request each spreadsheet or group of spreadsheets was responsive to and to provide an explanation for spreadsheets not attached to an email

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Alers v. City of Philadelphia, No. 08-4745, 2011 WL 6000602 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced a privileged memorandum as part of a multi-page document amid more than 2000 pages of document production and where they requested return of the document four days after learning of its disclosure at a deposition (where there was no objection made), the court found that privilege was not waived (despite defendants? choice to attach the memorandum to a publically available motion)

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced memorandum

Appleton Papers, Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No. 08-C-16, 2011 WL 7005721 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 19. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for destruction of original microfiche where the destruction occurred in a somewhat unique situation ( the crate of microfiche was destroyed after becoming an ?orphan sitting in a warehouse? after being shipped back to England) and where ?nothing of value was lost? because the originals had been digitally copied

Electronic Data Involved: Original microfiche

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:1-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2011 WL 5598306 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Reasoning that the litigation holds were not discoverable but that the details surrounding them were, court ordered defendant to produce ?information surrounding the litigation hold? including when defendants learned of claims, when and to whom litigation hold instructions were sent, what categories of information were identified for preservation , etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation holds

Pac. Coast Steel v. Leany, No. 2:09-cv-2190-KJD-PAL, 2011 WL 4704217 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: [This amended order corrects an omission to the original order, Docket # 335] Where plaintiffs ?simply overlooked? and thus inadvertently produced 3 privileged documents along with 2.3 million other pages, despite conducting ?multiple? privilege reviews and where plaintiff immediately objected to the use of such documents upon their presentation at deposition and thereafter sought their return before the court, the court found that privilege was not waived

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tibble v. Edison Int?l, No. CV 07-5359, 2011 WL 3759927 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court addressed defendants? request for ?costs for utilizing the expertise of computer technicians in unearthing the vast amount of computerized data sought by Plaintiffs in discovery? and reasoned that ?[c]ourts have found that costs such as those sought by Defendants are recoverable under ? 1920(4)? and that defendants costs were not incurred for mere convenience but rather were ?necessarily incurred in responding to Plaintiffs? discovery requests? and concluded the costs were reasonable; the court found the request to be moot, however, where defendants sought costs ?only to the extent Plaintiffs receive attorneys fees? and no such fees were awarded

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2010 WL 145786 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to grant spoliation sanctions for the destruction of metadata resulting from defendant?s continued use of his company-issued laptop where such use was not prohibited by the temporary restraining order and was not shown to destroy relevant evidence and where there was no evidence of defendant?s bad faith

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Author - eDiscovery Import