eDiscovery Import – Page 71 – Electronic Discovery Law

Keenan v. Int?l Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, No. 2:10-cv-277-GZS, 2013 WL 1314302 (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiff?s disposal of personal computer that allegedly crashed where the evidence indicated no bad faith (plaintiff admitted that disposal of the computer was an error due to his own ignorance) and where defendants prejudice was limited in light of other evidence and their ability to explore plaintiff?s truthfulness regarding his assertions that he filed a timely appeal (a copy of which was allegedly lost when the computer crashed and was disposed of) at trial; although court declined to exclude evidence (the requested sanction) it left open the possibility that other sanctions may be imposed ?at a later stage?

Electronic Data Involved: Personal Computer

Parsi v. Daioleslam, No. 08-705 (JDB), 2013 WL 1403226 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Defendant?s final bill of recoverable costs and request for reimbursement for expenses related to his prior motion for sanctions, including costs related to two rounds of forensic imaging by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and, after deducting and discounting certain costs, awarded recovery in the amount of $71,624.08 for the costs of imaging and related attorneys? fees

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to forensic imaging

Thornton v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 12-CV-298-JED-FHM, 2013 WL 1890706 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lynch v. Math-U-See, Inc., No. 13cv402-GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 2444662 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to quash subpoena based on the burden of reviewing the requested emails prior to production where, because the request sought all messages to or from particular persons, the court determined that no review of the emails was necessary (that is to say, if the email was to or from one of the identified persons, it was responsive to the subpoena and thus subject to production regardless of content); because the movant was a non-party, however, the court indicated its inclination to set a reasonable cost of production, before production was complete, to prevent the responding party from manipulating production to increase the award and to streamline production and ordered the requesting party to pay the responding non-party $420.00 ?as reasonable compensation for compliance?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Prowess, Inc. v. Raysearch Labs. AB, No. WDQ-11-1357, 2013 WL 1976077 (D. Md. May 9, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Pursuant to FRE 502(b), the court found privilege had not been waived where production of the at-issue document was inadvertent (instead of producing certain documents within a sub-folder, the whole folder was mistakenly produced), where reasonable steps were taken to prevent the disclosure (trained and supervised contract attorneys conducted privilege review and only 16 of 60,000 documents were inadvertently produced) and where reasonable and prompt steps were taken to rectify the error (plaintiff contacted defendant the day after it learned of the inadvertent production)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (infringement analysis)

Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Moskowitz, — N.Y.S.2d —, 2013 WL 2341806 (N.Y. App. Ct. May 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Sanction precluding plaintiff from presenting evidence or testimony in opposition to defendant?s defenses and counterclaims affirmed where plaintiff failed for two years to reveal that relevant ESI had been lost after it was allegedly printed; claimed that the relevant computer was ?broken? and had been discarded when defendant sought a forensic examination; and failed to issue a litigation hold; appellate court rejected contention that the disposal did not prejudice defendant because the files had been printed where that claim was contradicted at deposition and where hard copy did not contain metadata

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive/computer

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Phillips v. Wellpoint, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00357-JPG-SCW, 2013 WL 2147560 (S.D. Ill. May 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Finding the reasoning of the Third Circuit in Race Tires America Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) persuasive, the court in this case found only a portion of Defendant?s claimed costs were recoverable: court allowed recovery for the imaging of hard copy files and for uploading hard copy materials into a database for electronic production and also acknowledged that the conversion of documents into TIFF images was recoverable, but declined to allow recovery for ?logical document determination? (?organizing documents to avoid single page production?), ?project management and technical services,? most ?ingestion services,? and ?professional services? such as establishing protocols for processing and quality control measures to ensure those protocols were met

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to ediscovery

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Author - eDiscovery Import