eDiscovery Import – Page 19 – Electronic Discovery Law

Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., No. 14-cv-2634(JFB)(SIL), 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendants? motion to compel Plaintiff?s cell phone records for the purpose of determining her activities during work hours and ordered the production of a sampling of such records from a two year period with an invitation for defendants to renew their application if the sampling provided probative evidence; court denied defendants? motion to compel social media content for the purpose of proving that Plaintiff was engaged in non-work related activities while she claimed to be working where defendants offered little more than their hope that they would find something of relevance but ordered production of a sampling of content from Plaintiff?s Facebook account for the purpose of determining her emotional state, limited to the production of content referencing claimed emotional distress and any related treatment and any alternative sources for the alleged distress

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (FLSA, NYLL)

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone records, Social media (Facebook)

Superior Performers Inc. v. Meaike, No. 1:13CV1149, 2015 WL 471429 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s agent deleted an original voicemail from his phone by way of a factory reset but had produced a copy and also claimed to have transferred the voicemail to his new phone and where Defendants sought sanctions and argued that the deletion would prevent them from showing the voicemail was fabricated, as they suspected, the court declined to impose sanctions for the alleged fabrication, despite evidence the presentation of evidence that could lead to that conclusion, but did order that Plaintiff be prevented from using the voicemail at trial as a sanction for spoliation, reasoning that although the voicemail was not on one of Plaintiff?s phones (but rather on its agent?s), it ?likely? had a duty to preserve the evidence and that Plaintiff did not attempt to provide access to the phone or provide notice of the voicemail?s possible destruction

Nature of Case: Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail

Davenport v. Charter Comm?cns., LLC, No. 2015 WL 1286372 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of time records in .xls format where Defendant first produced the records in a searchable PDF format, generally found by courts to be ?reasonably usable,? and where the parties? discovery plan contemplated the possible reproduction of certain information upon a showing of good cause in situations where the data or metadata was not adequately captured, but where the court found that Plaintiffs desire to manipulate the documents with greater ease did not constitute good cause; court stated: ?Such difficulties would have been a good reason for Plaintiffs to specify a particular format in their request for production, but are not sufficient ?good cause? to force Defendant to reformat and produce data which it has already provided.?

Nature of Case: FLSA Collective Action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Time Clock Records

Perez v. Metro Dairy Corp., No. 13 CV 2109(RML), 2015 WL 1535296 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiffs in this collective action sought spoliation sanctions for Defendants? failure to produce certain relevant evidence, including payroll records, W-2s, cashier sheets, etc. Defendants objected to the motion on the grounds that ?all of their books, records and computers were seized? pursuant to the court?s order in a different case and that there was no time to make any copies or back ups. Accordingly, the court reasoned that Defendants had not destroyed their records and found that ?[u]nder the specific circumstances of this case ? Defendants did not have an obligation to copy their books and records before complying with the court?s order.? Plaintiffs? motion for sanctions was denied.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records (payroll, W-2s etc.)

Melissa ?G? v. N. Babylon Union Free School Dist., No. 36209/2006, 2015 WL 1727598 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought production of Plaintiff?s Facebook account (?all postings, status reports, e-mails, photographs and videos posted on her web page to date?) and supported their position with evidence taken from the public content of Plaintiff?s Facebook page, the court acknowledged defendants? obligation to ?establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s Facebook account? that is contradictory to Plaintiff?s alleged claims and that the obligation was met and, reasoning that ?[i]n discovery matters, counsel for the producing party is the judge of relevance in the first instance,? ordered Plaintiff to print and retain all of her Facebook account?s contents and ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to review Plaintiff?s Facebook postings and to produce all that was relevant; the court acknowledged the ?reasonable expectation of privacy attached? to one-on-one messaging and indicated that such messages need not be reviewed ?absent any evidence that such routine communications with family and friends contain information that is material and necessary to the defense.?

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from sexual contact with a teacher

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

In re Milo?s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, No. 12-1011, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 1650963 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of all of Plaintiff?s Facebook materials, the court found ?nothing improper? in Plaintiff?s redaction of irrelevant information from her prior Facebook production, distinguishing the present case from Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2011) in which the court compelled production of Plaintiff?s username and password, and reasoned, in part, that Plaintiff had already provided Facebook information relevant to the case and that Defendant failed to show that further production would result in more relevant information or that Plaintiff?s counsel?s assessment of relevance was questionable

Nature of Case: Claims related to harm to pet from jerky treats

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where ?Defendants provided Plaintiff with fully searchable documents, sortable by metadata fields, in a folder structure organized by custodian,? the court found this was ?sufficient to satisfy the requirements for document production of ESI under Rule 34? and declined to compel Defendants to provide an index

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death during medical procedure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bruno?s v. Bozzuto?s, No. 3:09-CV-00874, 2015 WL 1862990 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs intentionally destroyed all paper and electronic copies of relevant financial information despite a duty to preserve citing the burden of storage, the court found that the destruction was in bad faith, but that the prejudice was minimal where other sources of evidence provided sufficient information to support Defendant?s defenses and thus ordered an adverse inference at trial; where one plaintiff was a Certified Public Accountant, court considered her professional capacity when considering the willfulness of the destruction, noting that it ?strains credulity? that an accountant would throw away all financial documents because of ?storage space?

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (financial data)

Butler v. State of Texas, —S.W.3d—, 2015 WL 1816933 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 22, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Highest criminal court in Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals that had overturned defendant?s conviction upon concluding that the trial court ?had acted within its discretion? in concluding that the state met its threshold burden of authentication sufficient to admit defendant?s text messages to the victim where authentication can be satisfied by direct or circumstantial evidence and where the victim testified that she knew the messages were from defendant because: he had called from that number in the past, ?the context of the text messages convinced her that the messages were from him,? and ?he actually called her from that same phone number during the course of that very text message exchange?

Nature of Case: Criminal: Kidnapping, assault and related crimes

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages from Defendant to the victim

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

Author - eDiscovery Import