Case Summaries – Page 140 – Electronic Discovery Law

Clemons v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-339, 1:11-cv-340, 2014 WL 3507299 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant attempted to preserve relevant video by assigning a part time maintenance/IT employee to copy the relevant portion but failed to discover that the wrong portion was copied before the tape was overwritten, the Magistrate Judge found that the failure to preserve the relevant footage was grossly negligent and recommended a mandatory adverse inference, that defendant be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony from witnesses who viewed the unavailable footage and that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney?s fees; the district court adopted the recommendations

Nature of Case: Claims of deliberate indifference to prisoner’s medical needs

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Connelly v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., No. 12-2660, 2014 WL 2003093 (E.D. La. May 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at point in time at which surveillance videotape was overridden pursuant to VA’s 30-day retention policy, VA was on notice that the surveillance tape was relevant to litigation; plaintiff also failed to show any bad faith with respect to the alleged destruction of video surveillance

Nature of Case: Federal Tort Claims Act claim for slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Tedeschi v. Kason Credit Corp, No. 3:10CV00612 DJS, 2014 WL 1491173 (D. Conn. Apr. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference based on defendant’s failure to preserve printouts from its computer system, finding that defendant did not have a duty to preserve printouts so long as the electronic files themselves were preserved

Nature of Case: Claims under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Printed fact sheets that showed collection activity maintained on defendant’s computer system

Crissen v. Gupta, No. 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH, 2014 WL 1431653 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court criticized plaintiff for not complying with inadvertent production provision of protective order and ordered plaintiff to delete all copies of the recalled documents and any information gleaned therefrom from its network drive, and further ruled that plaintiff may not use the documents or any work product derived therefrom unless and until it is determined that those documents should have been produced; court further awarded bank its fees and costs in connection with the motion, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel, because the language of the claw back provision was clear and plaintiff’s counsel not only ignored that language but then took the extra step of reviewing the very documents the bank sought to recall

Nature of Case: Racketeering, fraud, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns, bank documents containing defendants’ personal financial information, and internal bank documents

Lemon Juice v. Twitter, Inc., No. 502898/14, 2014 WL 4287049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where unknown person created Twitter account in plaintiff?s name and in violation of criminal court’s order took photo of child victim in court testifying against her tormentor and posted it to Twitter account, court ruled that plaintiff had met his burden of demonstrating a meritorious claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the discovery sought from Twitter was needed in order to identify who should be named as a defendant, and that anonymous Twitter account creator?s behavior constituted an actionable tort and was not speech covered by First Amendment protection such that anonymity of creator had to yield to plaintiff?s need to redress the actionable wrong perpetrated against him; court directed Twitter to disclose basic subscriber information, records, internet protocol addresses and other similar information sufficient to identify owner of the bogus Twitter account and to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) seeking an order directing Twitter to preserve certain evidence and to disclose certain information

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter subscriber information sufficient to identify the individual(s) who owned or operated particular Twitter account and logged into or “tweeted” on the account

BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1396, 2014 WL 4925698 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court did not err in ordering that adverse inference instruction be given to jury as to contents of particular file where plaintiff had notice that file, which was within plaintiff?s control, was relevant to pending litigation, it attempted to refer to contents of file in support of motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff?s explanation for loss of the file was pretextual and not reasonable; appellate court reversed trial court?s decision to impose ultimate sanction of dismissal because record did not support conclusion that plaintiff willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with trial court?s orders, since dismissal rested on conduct that did not relate to court-ordered discovery and in most instances occurred prior to the first discovery order; appellate court vacated trial court?s award of attorneys? fees in favor of defendant and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of reasonable expenses because the basis for the award was unclear and the award appeared to include other fees and costs unrelated to the particular discovery motion for which they were awarded

Nature of Case: Suit to enforce obligations arising out of promissory notes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, spreadsheets

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Case No. 13md2452 AJB (MDD), 2014 WL 4987877 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants estimated that cost of production would be between $280,000 and $400,000, or even greater, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of adverse event source documents and databases, finding that the additional time and expense of identifying, redacting, and producing the source files outweighed the likely benefit resulting from evaluating source files for instances of mis-classification

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Source documents underlying adverse event reports and adverse event databases

In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, 2014 WL 5462496 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court overruled defendant?s objections to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted the direct action plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents located in France in accordance with the FRCP; court evaluated a series of factors in weighing whether foreign laws like the French Blocking Statute excused compliance with an American discovery request, and concluded that the relevant factors weighed in favor of permitting discovery to go forward in France pursuant to the FRCP; court dismissed defendant?s argument that it would be subject to criminal sanctions if it complied with discovery requests outside the Hague Convention process, observing that there was no realistic risk of prosecution under the French Blocking Statute

Nature of Case: Violations of U.S. antitrust laws

Electronic Data Involved: Documents held by a defendant in France that were relevant to such defendant’s communications with competitors, and documents produced to various foreign regulatory agencies during prior investigations related to price fixing in the CRT industry

Catagory:Case Summaries