eDiscovery Import – Page 61 – Electronic Discovery Law

Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 09 C 243, 2013 WL 1966363 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs related to making one set of copies of the at issue documents, including bates labeling , but found that the city had ?not met its burden of establishing that the additional expenses, including scanning, OCR, and the production of a master DVD, were reasonably necessary under ? 1920(4)?

Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation under Title VII

Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs

Petition of John W. Danforth Group, Inc, No. 13-MC033S, 2013 WL 3324017 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where petitioner sought to perpetuate evidence and an order of preservation pursuant to Rule 27 in light of an anticipated witness?s untruthfulness about his use of social media and refusal to turn over his personal mobile phone or to allow for a backup to be made absent a court order, the court declined to issue such an order where Rule 27 relief should be granted ?only in special circumstances to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost? and where the petitioner?s ?generalized statements of concern? were insufficient to warrant pre-complaint intervention

Nature of Case: Pre-complaint order of preservation

Electronic Data Involved: Anticipated witness’s mobile device

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2013 WL 1277878 (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s fourth and fifth motions for sanctions resulting from the delayed production of relevant ESI for reasons ranging from alleged computer glitches to prior counsel?s failure to turn over highly relevant emails?and current counsel?s failure to timely discovery that those emails had previously been withheld?the court acknowledged current counsel?s efforts to rectify prior discovery abuses (addressed in prior sanctions motions) but nonetheless found that severe sanctions were warranted, including that defendant?s non-equitable counterclaims be stricken, that defendant pay the reasonable costs associated with the filing of the fourth and fifth motions for sanctions, that defendant or its counsel bear the cost of re-depositions (which they had previously offered to do), and that defendant pay a portion of the costs for plaintiff?s experts to supplement their reports

Nature of Case: Claims arising from contract for providing worker?s compensation insurance and claims administration

Electronic Data Involved: Misc. ESI

Little Hocking Water Assn., Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 2:09-cv-1081, 2013 WL 1196606 (S.D. Ohio)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant indicated that historical data was unavailable because it had been stored on magnetic tapes that could only be accessed with outdated technology that had been disassembled (VAX computer) and that the tapes had degraded and the information could not be retrieved, the court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery related to the ?failure to preserve or the destruction? of the at-issue data and ordered Defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) designee and to produce all relevant documents related to the ?preservation, failure to preserve and/or destruction? of the historical data and technology

Nature of Case: Groundwater contamination

Electronic Data Involved: Magnetic tapes, VAX computer

Breathablebaby LLC v. Crown Crafts, Inc., No. 12-cv-94 (PJS/TNL), 2013 WL 3350594 (D. Minn. May 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Calling defendants collection efforts ?incomplete and somewhat haphazard? where defendant provided no instruction to its chosen custodians regarding the types of documents to search for, whether to check with subordinates, or how to search for documents, the court reopened discovery so that production could ?commence in accordance with the parties? joint ESI plan,? and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding search terms and an amended scheduling order; court considered proper logging of emails and ordered defendant to produce an amended privilege log that listed each privileged email contained in an email string separately

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, misc. ESI

Altercare Inc. v. Clark, No. 12CA010211, 2013 WL 3356577 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve plaintiff?s work computer at a time when litigation should have been reasonably foreseeable (because plaintiff?s employment ended under ?contentious? circumstances and because plaintiff was an attorney) and despite receipt of a specific written request for preservation, the trial court did not err in dismissing defendant?s claims against the plaintiff as a sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work computer / computer hard drive

Higgins v. Koch Dev. Corp., No. 3:11-cv-81-RLY-WGH, 2013 WL 3366278 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of Plaintiffs? Facebook information/content, the court rejected Plaintiffs? claims that the request violated their right to privacy and the privacy rights of their Facebook ?friends? who had posted on their walls or tagged them in photographs, and ordered the plaintiffs to produce material concerning their claimed injuries and their effects

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

AMC Tech., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-3403 PSG, 2013 WL 3733390 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for Defendant?s deletion of the ESI belonging to a former employee where despite a general duty to preserve, the defendant ?could not have reasonably known? of the potential relevance of the at-issue ESI; where the disposal of ESI was pursuant to a routine deletion policy and other communications from the at-issue employee were produced from other custodians ?which suggests that Cisco did not act with a conscious disregard;? and where the relevance of the documents was tentative and the court was ?hard-pressed? to find that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss

Nature of Case: Claims related to software development and licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI belonging to former employee

Lane v. Vasquez, 961 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for default judgment for alleged spoliation of ?documents pertaining to his non-selections? (in hiring) where Plaintiff failed to present ?clear and convincing evidence? that the ?abusive behavior? occurred and failed to show why a lesser sanction would not sufficiently punish or deter Defendant?s behavior; court also addressed Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference as to several specific instances of spoliation and provided individual analysis for each piece of evidence and ultimately denied the adverse inference as to all evidence for reasons including the failure to establish that any documents were in fact destroyed and the court?s determination that an adverse inference would not rebut Defendant?s ?legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons? for the alleged adverse employment actions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ?Documents related to the hiring process for positions he was denied?

Hart v. Dillon Cos., Inc., No. 12-CV-00238-RM-DW, 2013 WL 3442555 (D. Colo. July 9, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for former employer?s spoliation of a tape containing a secretly recorded conversation ?which in part? led to Plaintiff?s termination, the court found that the tape was relevant, that Defendant had an obligation to preserve it (citing the fact that ?it knew that litigation was imminent? and a federal statute requiring the preservation of employment records concerning a terminated employee for 1 year from the date of termination), and that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the spoliation; in concluding that sanctions were warranted, court noted Defendant?s four month delay in issuing a litigation hold and indicated that ?[a]fter the duty to preserve attaches, the failure to collect taped recording from a key player is grossly negligent or willful?; what specific sanction would be imposed was not determined

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Tape of secretly recorded conversation

Author - eDiscovery Import