eDiscovery Import – Page 95 – Electronic Discovery Law

MGA Entm?t, Inc. v. Nat?l Prods. Ltd., No. CV 10-07083 JAK (SSx), 2012 WL 12886446 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of responsive documents relating to Defendant?s sale of products carrying the Little Tikes brand. Defendant had attached documents to its opposition motion that it had not previously produced to Plaintiff, which prompted the current motion. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant ?identify all custodians of documents referring or relating to Defendant?s sale? and conduct a ?forensic analysis of all Defendants? document custodians? to locate responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request for a forensic analysis, noting ?that the motion is based only on speculation and lacks conclusive proof that responsive documents are actually being withheld.? However the court found that Defendant?s ESI searching ?may have been inadequate? and were performed ?without guidance or supervision from an attorney on how to conduct a search.? The court ordered a meet and confer to identify custodians and agree on search terms, the Defendant must then perform the searches of ESI on Defendants’ computers/systems (supervised by an attorney who must then submit a declaration) and produce responsive documents.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Makeen v. Comcast of Colo. X, LLC, 2011 WL 93728 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s loss of server logs where the court determined that the logs were of minimal relevance to plaintiff?s claims and where the logs ?rolled over? in the usual course of business prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA and ADA, employment discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Server logs

Silverman v. United States, 2011 WL 65487 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy the form at issue was subject to retention until February 4, 2007, and where defendant provided notice of his claims on February 1, 2007, including his assertions of defendant?s negligence, court found destruction of the relevant form warranted an adverse inference establishing that defendant negligently loaded the trailer involved in the underlying accident

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dubler v. Hangsterfer?s Labs., 2011 90244 (D.N.J. Jan. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant produced privileged emails and sought to preclude waiver arising therefrom, the court rejected defendant?s assertions that it did not intend to waive privilege and, noting the lack of evidence regarding reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that defendant had not yet requested the return of the documents at issue, found that privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Employement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

United States v. Gravely, 2011 WL 112468 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Bureau of Prison?s failure to preserve video footage of hallway outside cell in which the alleged murder of an inmate occurred did not violate the defendant?s constitutional rights where the defendant failed to establish that the footage was materially exculpatory and where the court found the failure to preserve was grossly negligent but not in bad faith

Nature of Case: Defendant charged with murdering another inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a store employee attempted to copy the relevant surveillance footage but was unsuccessful and where the failure was not discovered until after the tape had been overwritten, the court found defendant?s loss of the relevant footage was negligent and imposed an adverse inference that the lost footage would have been unfavorable to the defendant

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video

McNulty v. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., 2011 116892 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved 4 terabytes of electronically stored information and 744 boxes of paper documents to be reviewed for production, court cited Rule 26(b)(2)(B) for the proposition that burdensome discovery should be limited but found that plaintiff had good cause for requesting relevant information and ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop search terms or objective search criteria for identifying responsive ESI as well as to develop a search plan for the hard copy

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Liberman v. Fedex Ground Package Syst., Inc., 2011 WL 145474 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant negligently failed to preserve information that would have revealed whether a FedEx agent delivered packages to the address of the relevant accident on the day in question and where the presence of such a delivery person was disputed by FedEx, the court declined to grant default judgment but ordered an adverse inference establishing that a FedEx agent had delivered a package to the relevant address on the date of the accident

Nature of Case: Injury resulting from being hit by delivery handtruck loaded with boxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Seven Seas Cruises S. DE R.L. v. V. Ships Leisure Sam, 2011 WL 181439 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of defendants? search, including whether defendants had used the agreed-upon search terms, and the format of defendant?s production, and where plaintiff specifically pointed to an email that should have been produced but was not, the court noted plaintiffs? concession that defendants? search methodology did not result in plaintiff receiving fewer documents and that they had been able to use the information produced, despite their arguments regarding format, but ?nevertheless concluded? that defendants should provide additional information and ordered the submission of an affidavit detailing defendants? search efforts; the court concluded that the dispute in this case was ?caused primarily by the parties? mutual failure to communicate and work together in good faith to resolve the areas of dispute? and counseled that in future the parties should more clearly specify the way in which discovery will be conducted and, if they cannot agree, should seek judicial assistance

Nature of Case: Suit for damages arising from failure to provide proper ship management

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Halliburton, Co., 272 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court declined to compel defendants to conduct additional searching where defendants established the significant efforts already undertaken to locate and produce responsive materials and where plaintiff made ?no showing whatsoever . . . that those emails not produced will make the existence of some crucial facts more likely than not?, the court concluded that ?the search relator demands cannot possibly be justified when one balances its cost against its utility.?; court went on to establish that the inability to find certain information, despite a duty to preserve, did not negate the ability of a party to rely on Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to argue against additional searching

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Additional searching for ESI

Author - eDiscovery Import