Case Summaries – Page 127 – Electronic Discovery Law

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., No. 11-3684 DMC, 2014 WL 1494517 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to take a 30(b)(6) deposition to inquire regarding whether Plaintiff was ?using the appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,? based on Defendant?s expert?s determination that Plaintiff had ?some of most (sic) sophisticated and comprehensive state-of-the-art document search and location tools? and the assertion that ?Philips refuses to use these tools? and where Plaintiff indicated that it had always used ?a custodian-based approach to collecting ESI[ ],? and that it outsourced its collection to Microsoft Online Services and did not have a contract that permitted the type of searching and collecting suggested by the defendant, the court found that Plaintiff had adequately established the reasonableness of its approach and also reasoned that while the deposition itself would not be a burden, it would open the door to potentially burdensome additional discovery that was unlikely to be productive and thus was not warranted

Nature of Case: Appeal of decision of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Freedman v. Weatherford Int?l, Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121(LAK)(JCF), 2014 WL 3767034 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court considered plaintiffs? motion to compel production of ?certain reports comparing the results of the defendants document search and production in this case with? the search terms proposed by the plaintiff and with searches and productions related to prior investigations but denied the motion upon defendant?s showing that preparing only a sample report took ?several weeks, over 250 hours of vendor time, and 750 hours of computer processing time? and where plaintiffs offered ?no adequate factual basis for their belief that the current production [was] deficient? in support of what amounted to a request for ?discovery on discovery?; court acknowledged, however, that ?there are circumstances where such collateral discovery is warranted?

Nature of Case: False and misleading statements in violation of securities laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lawrence v. Dependable Med. Transp. Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-0417-HRH, 2014 WL 2510623 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs supported their motion for partial summary judgment with plainly privileged e-mails between defendants and their attorneys, which defendants had inadvertently produced, court granted defendants’ motion to strike and ruled that, because plaintiffs had failed to comply with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), they would not be allowed to use the e-mails for any purpose

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged e-mails

Riley v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08123-PCT-JAT, 2014 WL 641632 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied five-part test to deny plaintiff’s motion for claim-dispositive sanctions but would allow reasonable attorneys’ fees and adverse inference instruction where city failed to suspend its 45-day retention policy for city employee email and defendant mayor apparently destroyed or failed to preserve relevant email in his private Gmail account, as numerous emails on which the mayor or his assistant were senders or recipients were discovered from third party sources, e.g., Google, Inc., but none were included in defendants’ production

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McNabb v. City of Overland Park, No. 12-CV-2331 CM/TJJ, 2014 WL 1493124 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to produce additional 10,189 responsive emails where plaintiff did not identify any specific discovery request for which she sought to compel production, or any specific objection thereto that she claimed to be invalid, and defendant had already produced five categories of emails totaling over 36,000 documents; court advised that plaintiff must present something more than mere speculation that search of 14 custodians’ email files using 35 proposed search terms was likely to reveal additional responsive emails, and further noted that, on its face, search term list was overly broad and likely to capture many emails having nothing to do with issues in case

Nature of Case: Sexual discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Dataflow, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-1127 (LEK/DEP), 2014 WL 148685 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2013 WL 6992130) that plaintiff?s motion for adverse inference instruction be granted as sanction for defendant?s grossly negligent failure to preserve internal emails in violation of its own retention policy; court deferred ruling on the language of the jury instruction until the filing of pretrial memoranda so as to consider proposed jury instructions as a whole

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Internal emails

Vasquez v. Cal. Sch. of Culinary Arts, 230 Cal.App.4th 35(2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after successfully opposing Sallie Mae’s motion to quash subpoena, as Sallie Mae lacked substantial justification for its motion given that plaintiffs did not seek to have Sallie Mae extract and compile information from paper files but only asked that Sallie Mae extract ESI from an existing database, plaintiffs never expressed an unwillingness to pay for the reasonable cost of doing so but repeatedly asked for a cost estimate, and Sallie Mae ignored plaintiffs’ requests and did not provide a cost estimate until after its motion to quash had been denied and plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees was being heard

Nature of Case: 1,034 former students asserted claims of fraud, breach of contract and violations of consumer laws

Electronic Data Involved: Loan records maintained by Sallie Mae

Lewis v. Bay Inds., Inc., No. 12-C-1204, 2014 WL 4925483 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant had taken “extraordinary step” of handing over to plaintiff’s computer expert a mirror image copy of the company’s email server so that expert could conduct his own search, and none of the mostly irrelevant emails retrieved by expert provided support for plaintiff?s claims, and plaintiff failed to offer convincing evidence that defendant violated an order of the court or intentionally destroyed or concealed relevant evidence, court rejected plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing all of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation and wrongful discharge claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Curtin v. Blair Bros. Contracting, Inc., No. 2012-1082, 2014 WL 4695980 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 28, 2014) (unreported)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants asserted they received only a “handful” of emails and argued that plaintiffs destroyed or otherwise failed to preserve relevant emails, court denied defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that defendants failed to prove that the subject emails ever actually existed; court further rejected defense argument that missing emails were relevant to their counterclaim, observing that, to the extent the counterclaim sought payment for ?extras? performed by defendants, defendants presumably had their own records to support the counterclaim and did not need to rely on emails exchanged between plaintiffs and their architect, therefore even if spoliation did take place, the defendants were not prejudiced thereby

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and conversion arising from residential construction

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries