Case Summaries – Page 145 – Electronic Discovery Law

Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., 2014 WL 2522717 (N.Y. App. Div. June 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Divided appellate court reversed trial court?s order granting adverse inference instruction against defendants where plaintiffs did not establish relevance of lost material, facts did not support a finding of gross negligence on the part of defendants, but at most, a finding of simple negligence in failing to ensure that acquired company instituted a litigation hold, and plaintiffs presented no evidence that such a hold would have saved the relevant ESI from destruction when the acquired company?s entire computer system crashed

Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 3:11-cv-1493-ST, 2014 WL 991822 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After non-party produced responsive documents and sought reimbursement of $17,298 from defendant, court found that that hourly rate of $65 to $160 to search and copy documents was ?inherently unreasonable? and could not be justified, and invoices were vague and included entries for internal communications and meetings and time for senior scientists “to stand around the copier and copy documents”; court ruled that the defendant’s prior payment of $5,670 — about one-third of the total charge — was a reasonable amount, and that non-party must either absorb or charge the plaintiff for the remainder of its cost to comply with subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party documents relating to or arising out of specific invoices

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

Shlian v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., No. BPG-13-954, 2014 WL 1320102 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Spoliation sanction of a negative inference jury instruction based on defendant?s failure to preserve CCTV tape that recorded plaintiff?s fall was not warranted, since defendant had no duty to preserve the tape because it had no reason to anticipate litigation, and defendant lacked the requisite mental state as the incident footage was taped over in the normal course of business and not through an intentional act

Nature of Case: Slip and fall personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Closed-circuit TV tape

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cormack v. United States, No. 13-232C, 2014 WL 3555255 (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found no waiver resulting from the production of a privileged email (work product) in light of the scope of discovery (more than one million pages produced), defendant?s use of ?advanced software to screen for privilege,? and the ?numerous steps? intended to protect privilege as outlined for the court and because counsel sought the email?s return ?within hours? of receiving a filing with the email attached; defendant was also found to be in control of documents in the possession of a ?wholly owned but indirect French subsidiary? in light of the companies? collaboration on the at-issue software as illustrated by the companies? representations to the potential client regarding their collaboration, agreements between the companies, and the close working relationship between the two

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, documents in possession of non-party

XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., No. 12-2071, 2014 WL 295053 (E.D. La. Jan 27, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s complaints regarding format of defendant’s production of documents, because plaintiff failed to make any Rule 34(b)(2)(B) ESI specification in its discovery requests and defendant’s production of scanned images on OCR readable disc was a reasonably usable form; court ordered defendant to explain its document naming and numbering system to the extent it had not already done so, but denied any additional logistical relief, stating: ?Whatever burden XL and its counsel face in reviewing these materials that they themselves have requested is rightfully borne by them.?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Database of more than 808,000 documents consisting of more than four million pages

Jackson Family Wines, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., No. 11-5639 EMC (JSC), 2014 WL 595912 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions, where defendants never issued a litigation hold on marketing employee’s documents, never spoke to her about preserving documents, inexplicably deleted image of the her laptop six months after receiving the image from IBM pursuant to defendant?s ?leaver?s process,? waited over six months before notifying the court or plaintiffs about the destruction, and worse, made numerous representations to the court that consistently and vehemently sought to reassure the court that production of the employee?s documents was complete and irreproachable

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing image of departing marketing employee’s e-mail and other ESI

Samuel v. United Corp., No. ST-12-CV-457, 2014 WL 2608839 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to allow an adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant’s alleged destruction of critical video footage that preceded her fall, and reiterated prior guidance from the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands: “[U]pon reasonably foreseeable notice that evidence may be relevant to discovery, it is certainly not within the discretion of a store manager [or security officer] to determine what portion of the available recorded surveillance footage is relevant to anticipated litigation, even where surveillance video does not clearly show the cause of the accident”; court commented that routinely preserving only a minute and a half of footage prior to an accident teeters on the edge of being unreasonable, and recommended preservation of at least five minutes of surveillance footage of the area prior to the accident

Nature of Case: Slip-and-fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries