Author: Robertson Noreus

1
Calhoun v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022)
2
Aminov v. Berkshire Hathaway Guard Insurance Companies (E.D.N.Y. 2022)
3
Arconic Corp. v. Novelis Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2022)
4
Axis Ins. Co. v. American Specialty Ins. & Risk Servs., Inc. (December 2021)
5
America West Bank Members v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2021)
6
Addi v. Corvias Management-Army, LLC (D. Md. 2021)
7
Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021)
8
Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)
9
AnywhereCommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2021)
10
Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Calhoun v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Key Insight: This matter relates to the court’s order to compel and order to show cause as to why Google should not be sanctioned for interfering with the production of third-party Ernst & Young (E&Y) documents ordered by the court. Plaintiff subpoenaed E&Y for documents relating to the valuation of certain user information. Google moved for a protective order and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, narrowly tailoring the allowed requests. E&Y then identified 6,322 responsive documents and Google reviewed and deselected 6,232 documents on the basis of relevance, resulting in E&Y’s production of 90 documents. Google maintains it was justified in working with E&Y to cull irrelevant documents from the final production. The court noted: “Googles proffered ‘justification,’ primarily that the documents reflect highly confidential financial information not relevant to the claims in suit, was heard and rejected by this Court twice.” The court ordered Google to pay plaintiff’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion to compel.

Nature of Case: Data Privacy Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Financial documents

Case Summary

Axis Ins. Co. v. American Specialty Ins. & Risk Servs., Inc. (December 2021)

Key Insight: The court affirmed the Magistrate’s order granting (in part) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery to produce documents, to correct metadata issues and to pay expenses plaintiff incurred in pursuing the motion to compel. Defendant only objected to the Magistrate’s order on the fee request. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s order granting a provisional award of fees and costs. It found that the defendant’s opposition to the motion to compel discovery was not substantially justified under FRCP 37(a)(5)(A).

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Case Summary

America West Bank Members v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel after learning through the discovery process that defendants purged or lost emails and documents. Plaintiff sought “discovery on discovery” to discern the identities of individuals whose emails would have been responsive if those emails were still available, the identification of documents or categories of documents no longer available, and an explanation as to why other responsive documents were not produced. The court granted plaintiff’s request but found it “strictly limited to the purged former employee email accounts.” No additional depositions were permitted and plaintiff’s fourteen interrogatories on this topic were “neither reasonable nor proportional” to the limited nature of the discovery needed.

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email and documents

Case Summary

Addi v. Corvias Management-Army, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Key Insight: Work-product privilege protects documents prepared in anticipation by a party, its attorneys, or its consultants and agents. A consulting expert’s analysis and reports is protected work product. However, a consulting expert becomes a fact witness when it also acts a scheduler, inspector, or remediator. No protection would apply to those activities. The capacity in which the third party was acting will determine whether documents are work product. Raw data is not protected. However, the decision that certain subsets or compilations of data are relevant in advising the client or preparing the defense is protected. Opinions regarding such information to assist in advising or preparing the defense are also protected.

Nature of Case: Class Action, Tort

Electronic Data Involved: Raw Data, Report Logs, Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent defendant from obtaining ESI from five different social media platforms they were active on. The court found that while a plaintiff’s social media postings could be relevant to a claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages, some caution was necessary, such that a “deeper dive” into social media postings may be justified only in cases involving “severe and specific emotional distress” allegations. Since plaintiff alleged “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct, the discovery must be narrowed as follows: “specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress in connection with the incidents described in their Complaint,” i.e., diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of distress, treatment regimens and conversations regarding same; time frame limited from date contained in complaint of onset of difficulties to the date of filing of complaint; production limited to information found in a typical download of data from plaintiffs’ own accounts and plaintiffs “need not engage in extraordinary efforts in obtaining responsive information.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Case Summary

AnywhereCommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2021)

Key Insight: The court granted reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of documents in the possession of a corporate defendant in France. In a prior order, the court found that the GDPR did not preclude the court from ordering defendants to produce evidence, but based the order on plaintiffs’ representation that much of the requested information was located in the U.S. and therefore in the possession of domestic defendants. Thus, the court bifurcated its analysis to exclude any documents in the possession of French defendants. On reconsideration, plaintiffs claimed the important and relevant documents were located in France. Applying the factors from Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442(1)(c), the court found they weighed in favor of disclosure, together with the entry of a protective order that would protect France’s interests under the GDPR.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

Case Summary

Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.