eDiscovery Import – Page 29 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re VERP Inv., LLC, 457 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion by ordering forensic examination of landlord?s hard drive where ?[t]he procedural protections identified in In re Weekley Homes require that ?the requesting party must show that the responding party has somehow defaulted in its obligation to search its records and produce the requested data,? and that ?the responding party?s production ?has been inadequate and that a search of the opponent?s [electronic storage device] could recover … relevant materials[],?? where the tenant provided no evidentiary basis for his suspicion that the at-issue invoices were falsified, and where the tenant ?did not put on any evidence demonstrating that the kind of information he sought could be retrieved by the examination ultimately ordered by the trial court and the record [wa]s devoid of any attempt by Nguyen to explain this search methodology except for his counsel?s explanation that the search would attempt to exclude communications with counsel?

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting-related ESI

Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med., Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB), 2015 WL 4479147 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For Defendant?s failure to preserve its employees? text messages, court imposed an adverse inference.

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Balance Point Divorce Funding LLC v. Srantom, No. 13-cv-1049 (PKC), 2015 WL 997718 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court approved taxation of costs related to TIFF conversion and ?uploading responsive documents through the use of a File Transfer Protocol,? but declined to allow costs related to ?Processing Initial Dataset,? ?Culling and Posting Resulting Data Subset,? ?Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Processing,? ?ID/Conversion of Non-searchable Docs to Searchable,? ?Project Management,? ?Hosting Active-Data,? and ?document unitization?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable e-Discovery costs

Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 11 CV 2450, 2015 WL 351244 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Regarding the taxation of e-Discovery costs, court found that costs ?associated with the conversion of ESI into a readable format, such as scanning or otherwise converting a paper version to an electronic version or converting native files to TIFF files … are compensable under ? 1920(4). But costs related to the ?gathering, preserving, processing, searching, culling, and extracting of ESI simply do not amount to ?making copies? and are thus not taxable.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable e-Discovery Cost

DeCastro v. Kavadia, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 4619914 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For defendant?s intentional deletion of emails using cleaning software and misrepresentations intended to cover up the same as well as defendant?s failure to produce documents over which he was found to maintain control and misrepresentations related to the same, the magistrate judge recommended a permissive adverse inference and that defendant and counsel, who ?exacerbated? the effects of defendant?s misconduct through incomplete or misleading representations to the court, be jointly and severally liable for plaintiff?s attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions; district court rejected objections to the recommendations and adopted them in full

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00874, 2015 WL 5098952 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: On motion for reconsideration of three discovery orders, the court found no error in the lower court?s determination that Plaintiff?s admitted contemplation of litigation was sufficient to trigger her obligation to preserve, noting the lower court?s reliance on case law that ?the knowledge of a potential ? claim is deemed sufficient to impose a duty to preserve evidence?; court indicated that evidence contradicting Plaintiff?s claim that a third party still maintained the at-issue records was sufficient to allow the court to revisit the issue and to find that plaintiff acted in bad faith and also noted that in the Third Circuit, bad faith was not required to impose an adverse inference; addressing prejudice, court dismissed the proposition that Defendant?s access to at-issue evidence years earlier was sufficient to undercut any prejudice, noting that Defendant?s experts had not had access to the evidence; court found no clear error in the imposition of monetary sanctions for spoliation of evidence prior to trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S.E.C. v. Bonan Huang, No. 15-269, 2015 WL 5611644 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied ?Plaintiffs? motion to compel Defendant s to disclose their secret personal passcodes for smartphones owned by their former employer who, as a matter of policy, required their employees to keep their personal passcodes secret from everyone? upon concluding that ?[s]ince the passcodes to Defendants? work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment privilege? and that the ?foregone conclusion doctrine? did not apply ?as the SEC Cannot show with ?reasonable particularity? the existence or location of the documents it seeks?

Electronic Data Involved: Passcodes or passwords to smartphones

Hanwha Azdel Inc. v. C & D Zodiac, Inc., No. 6:12-CV-00023, 2015 WL 1417058 (Mar. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: District Judge adopted in toto recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, including approval of costs related to converting ESI into a reasonable format, where the conversion was requested by an opposing party and ultimately ordered by the court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Moulton v. Bane, No. 14-cv-265-JD, 2015 WL 7776892 (S.D.N.H. Dec. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant unintentionally lost text messages when his service provider failed to transfer those text messages to his new phone?despite his request to transfer ?everything??and where the texts were later recovered by a forensic analysist, court declined to impose ?punitive sanctions? and ordered Defendant to pay the cost of retrieving the messages

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages (WhatsApp)

Author - eDiscovery Import