Case Summaries – Page 115 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ballai v. Kiewit Power Constructors, Co., No. 110166, 2015 WL 423795 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court of Appeals of Kansas found no abuse of discretion by the district court for failing to order sanctions related to the recycling of the laptop computer used by appellant during his employment, as the district court did not issue an order to preserve and there is no statutory or common-law duty to preserve evidence in Kansas; court further found no abuse of discretion by the district court for excluding evidence of recycling the computer; court also found that a chat log was relevant, material, and probative and the appellant was protected from prejudice because the district court only allowed the redacted version of the chat log into evidence.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; Chat Log

In re Milo?s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, No. 12-1011, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 1650963 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of all of Plaintiff?s Facebook materials, the court found ?nothing improper? in Plaintiff?s redaction of irrelevant information from her prior Facebook production, distinguishing the present case from Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2011) in which the court compelled production of Plaintiff?s username and password, and reasoned, in part, that Plaintiff had already provided Facebook information relevant to the case and that Defendant failed to show that further production would result in more relevant information or that Plaintiff?s counsel?s assessment of relevance was questionable

Nature of Case: Claims related to harm to pet from jerky treats

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook (Social Media)

United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado, —F.3d—, 2015 WL 3772772 (9th Cir. June 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court found that Google Earth satellite image was not hearsay because it makes no assertion and also found that ?[a] tack placed by the Google Earth program and automatically labeled with GPS coordinates isn?t? hearsay? because the ?relevant assertion isn?t made by a person? its made by the Google Earth program? and therefore, there is no statement as defined by the hearsay rule (where the rule applies ?only to out-of-court statements? and where ?it defines a statement as ?a person?s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct?); however, ?[i]f the tack is place d manually and then labeled . . . its classic hearsay?

Nature of Case: Illegal re-entry into the U.S.A.

Electronic Data Involved: Google Earth image and tack

Scott v. Moniz, No. 3:14-CV-5684-RJB, 2015 WL 38223705 (W.D. Wash. June 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Failure to preserve emails after defaulting to regular document retention policies based on mistaken belief that Plaintiff had not appealed the dismissal of her case was ?at least negligent,? but court continued motion subject to renoting when discovery was complete to allow for an evaluation of prejudice

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

You v. Japan, No. C 15-30257, 2015 WL 5542539 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In this case, the court ordered preservation, including “interdiction of any document-destruction programs . . .” and defendant alleged that preservation of all contents of a proprietary publication application could slow down or crash the system and that installation of a new storage system would cost $18 million dollars and could take up to eight months to install. Accordingly, the defendant sought permission to employ an alternative preservation protocol, namely the use of key word search terms to identify materials to be preserved in a ?searchable environment not subject to auto-delete.? With the addition of one search term to be employed, the court approved Defendant?s proposal.

Nature of Case: Putative personal injury class action involving claims against numerous defendants for alleged sexual violence during World War II

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Malibu Media v. Ricupero, No. 2:14?cv?821 2015, 2015 WL 4273463 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Evans v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., No. 4:13-cv-00987-RBH, 2015 WL 9455580 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Reasoning that the ?issues of whether the alleged computer file ever existed and, if it did, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to the anticipated litigation, and whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the computer file rests on credibility determinations that this Court is not in a position make at this stage? and noting the ?disputed facts at issue,? the court indicated its inclination to ?to provide the jury with appropriate guidelines and instructions so that they, after hearing all of the evidence, can resolve any credibility questions and make a determination, first, as to whether the alleged computer file even existed on Plaintiff?s computer, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigations, and, if so, whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the file? and invited the parties to submit proposed jury instructions

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Banks v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 15-cv-2602-JAR-TJJ, 2015 WL 7451174 (D. Kan. Nov. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, court overruled Defendant?s objection to producing ESI in native format with metadata where Defendant failed to indicate in its objection the form of production it intended to use instead and did not support its objection by explaining why it could not or should not be required to produce as requested and, in fact, admitted that it had previously produced material in native format; court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to compel responses outlining Defendant?s search efforts (sometimes called “discovery on discovery”) where Plaintiff?s counsel failed to confer with Defense counsel prior to bringing the motion, as is required by the District of Kansas? ESI Guidelines

Nature of Case: Title VII: racial discrimination, retaliatory conduct

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Salyer, No. 14-14337-CIV-ROSENBERG/LYNCH, 2015 WL 12778793 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel forensic examination of Defendant?s ?personal computer devices and his personal email account? where Defendant claimed that his mobile phone was damaged, that a thumb drive was lost, and that his laptop stopped working, and where Defendant failed to search his email and gave inaccurate ?representations? about it; court admonished Plaintiff ?to give special care? to Defendant?s privacy and ordered that Defendant was allowed to be present for the search, and that the search criteria be prepared in advance and chosen to limit the scope to matters ?directly relevant to its claims for relief?

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computer, devices, email

Catagory:Case Summaries