Case Summaries – Page 110 – Electronic Discovery Law

Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? motion to compel production of defendant database records. Defendant argued that the harm to third parties from disclosure of personal information contained in the requested data outweighed the relevance of the information to plaintiffs? claim, and that the preparation, review, and production presented an undue burden. Finding that the requested data was highly relevant to the class certification requirements, the court concluded plaintiffs? need significantly outweighed privacy concerns given the option of producing subject to protective order and Plaintiffs? agreement to accept data with personal information redacted. Nor was the court persuaded by defendant?s burden argument, finding the estimate and explanation from plaintiffs? database consultant ?more persuasive, appropriate, and accurate? than that provided by defendant – particularly in light of modifications Plaintiffs made to their request after defendant clarified how the data was stored in their systems. The court also noted that defendant?s briefing failed to allege any facts supporting its assertion that the information was more readily available from other sources.

Nature of Case: Class Action; Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Cableview Commc?ns of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Se., LLC, 3:13-cv-306-J-34JRK, 2015 WL 12838175 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Plaintiff sought Defendant?s tax returns and document retention policies. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant in 2004 to provide cable television installation services. In 2010 Defendant tendered a workplace injury claim to Plaintiff for indemnification. Plaintiff?s insurance carrier denied coverage and the claim was left unpaid. In 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was being acquired by another company. One day before the closing of the transaction, Defendant contacted the acquiring company and made repayment for the workplace injury claim ?a condition to assent to assignment? of the agreement. Plaintiff alleged tortious interference and sought Defendant?s tax returns to demonstrate its ability to pay punitive damages. Plaintiff further alleged spoliation claiming there were missing emails and sought documents regarding Defendant?s document retention policies. The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion holding that the request for punitive damages cannot form the basis for financial worth discovery since Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing of tortious interference. Further, there was no spoliation given that Defendant located and produced the emails in question and so Defendant?s document retention policies were not relevant.

Nature of Case: Workplace injury claim

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

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

Chung v. El Paso School Dist. #11, No. 14-cv-01520-KLM, 2015 WL 7253334 (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court held clerk did not err in awarding costs for ?loading documents into an electronic data base for production to Plaintiff on computer disks during discovery.?

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

City of Sterling Heights Gen. Emps.? Ret. Sys. V. Prudential Fin., Inc., No. 12-05275(MCA)(LDW), 2015 WL 5055241 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Citing its broad discretion to manage discovery and the limitations posed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel Defendant to identify additional custodians and utilize additional search terms and ordered that Plaintiffs would be allowed to choose up to 10 additional custodians and that Defendant must apply the four disputed search terms proposed by Plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Securities Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 09-3073, 2015 WL 5970446 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For defendant?s failure to preserve and produce relevant evidence, copies or versions of which were discovered on a third party?s hard drive (e.g. correspondence between Defendant?s employee and the third party that were not preserved and produced by the defendant), the court found that Plaintiff ?suffered some prejudice? and thus sanctioned Defendant by taking it as ?established fact? that Defendant had similar communications with all of its ?Order Entry Retailers? (of which the relevant third party was one) of the same ?substantive type and quantity? as those discovered on the third party?s hard drive

Nature of Case: FTC Investigation: TCPA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Parsi v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court?s imposition of monetary sanctions for Plaintiff?s many discovery violations, including repeated violation of the court?s orders resulting in belated production of relevant evidence, and found no abuse of discretion for awarding expenses related to Defendants? third motion to compel Plaintiff?s production of relevant hardware, expenses related to the forensic imaging of Plaintiff?s hard drive, expenses related to the redeposition of Plaintiff?s officers (after delayed production of relevant evidence), and litigation expenses as a sanction for withholding emails

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (calendar items, database contents, other)

O?Connor v. Newport Hosp., 2015 WL 1225683 (R.I., Mar. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court vacated judgment in a medical malpractice case and remanded the case for a new trial where the trial justice admitted 3 exhibits without proper authentication, and exacerbated the error by allowing a biased, incorrect jury instruction which highlighted the information contained in the erroneously admitted exhibits, contributing to their prejudicial effect. Exhibits in question – whose purpose was to impeach plaintiff?s sole medical expert witness – were 2 printed versions of web pages, and a purported printout of an email, all of which were admitted over plaintiff?s objections after plaintiff?s expert witness was asked questions about their contents. With the record indicating no attempt to verify authenticity, no comments or findings from the justice with respect to authentication of any of the documents, nor indication on the record that defendant?s counsel made any representations to the trial justice regarding when or by whom the purported web page print outs were accessed and printed, the court concluded ?While we have not set a ?high hurdle to clear? with respect to authentication ? we hold that the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting exhibits A-C based solely on the brief testimony of one witness who was clearly unfamiliar with all three documents.?

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email; Web page

In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP, 2015 WL 10891632 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court held that ?litigation/preservation holds and memoranda (at least in this case) issued by a corporate party to its employees for purpose of giving instruction and direction concerning documents and records to be preserved by those employees, even where that instruction arises from legal advice from counsel, are not shielded by the attorney-client privilege? and ordered production of certain litigation holds, including sections identifying the documents to be preserved, characterizing the litigation holds as ?managerial? and without the protection of attorney-client or work product privileges

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation holds (i.e., legal holds, record holds)

Catagory:Case Summaries