Case Summaries – Page 161 – Electronic Discovery Law

Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01180, 2013 WL 1176504 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiffs? Facebook or other social media pages absent a threshold showing that the accounts would contain information within the scope of discovery but concluded that information stored on Plaintiff?s computer ?could lead reasonably to the discovery of admissible evidence? and required that the parties agree to a word search of Plaintiff?s computer by a neutral third party to ?asses whether Plaintiff?s computer contains relevant information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination/harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook and social media, personal computer

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 715 F.3d 165 (6th Cit. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Citing a court?s discretion in determining the strength of any adverse inference to be applied and noting that such a decision is determined on a case by case basis, the appellate court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a permissive rather than a non-rebuttable adverse inference for the defendants? bad faith spoliation of email

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Lane v. Vasquez, 961 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for default judgment for alleged spoliation of ?documents pertaining to his non-selections? (in hiring) where Plaintiff failed to present ?clear and convincing evidence? that the ?abusive behavior? occurred and failed to show why a lesser sanction would not sufficiently punish or deter Defendant?s behavior; court also addressed Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference as to several specific instances of spoliation and provided individual analysis for each piece of evidence and ultimately denied the adverse inference as to all evidence for reasons including the failure to establish that any documents were in fact destroyed and the court?s determination that an adverse inference would not rebut Defendant?s ?legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons? for the alleged adverse employment actions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ?Documents related to the hiring process for positions he was denied?

Maximum Human Performance, LLC v. Sigma-Tau Healthscience LLC, No 12-cv-6526-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 4537790 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Ind., Inc., No. 3:09-0487, 2013 WL 5306444 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Reasoning that a request for production cannot require a responding party to create documents that are not already in existence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of comparison sales reports for other U.S. sales districts where there was no dispute that the additional documents requested did not exist and would need to be created by extracting historical data from archive and backup data storage maintained by defendant

Nature of Case: Antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Sales data

You Fit, Inc. v. Pleasanton Fitness LLC, No. 8:12-CV-1917-T-27EAJ, 2013 WL 521784 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing request for preliminary injunction in trademark infringement action, court considered Yelp posting stating a customer?s confusion and found that consideration of the comment was appropriate in the context of an injunctive proceeding and also indicated in footnote that ?the comments are not hearsay because they are not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the comment. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c)(2). Rather, Plaintiffs invoke the comments to demonstrate the consumer?s confusion, a then-existing mental state of the declarant who posted the comments See Fed.R.Evid. 803(3).?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Social media content (e.g., Yelp review)

Lifetouch Nat?l School Studios, Inc. v. Moss-Williams, No. C10-05297, 2013 WL 11235928 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a former employee (defendant) admitted prior possession of a thumb drive containing Plaintiff?s data (her prior employer) and that she had connected the thumb drive to her new employer?s computers (who is also a defendant) but where she claimed that she had not transferred any of Plaintiff?s information, that she could not recall the computer she connected to, and that she destroyed the drive before her duty to preserve arose, court reasoned that there was a ?sufficient nexus between the defendant?s computers and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets to warrant forensic imaging of the computers? (over 60 in number) but, applying the cost-shifting analysis from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003), found that in light of the ?broad scope of the request, the cost of production, the resource disparity of the parties? and defendant?s repeated assertion that the information did not exist, cost shifting was appropriate; court indicated it ?may reconsider? cost allocation if the expert determined that information from the thumb drive was transferred to defendant?s computer

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employer

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., No. 12-cv-2582 CW (JSC), 2013 WL 1767960 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Kozumi had control over non-party consultant?s emails absent any evidence that defendants could legally compel the non-party to produce the requested documents

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Cefalu v. Holder, No. 12-0303 THE (JSC), 2013 WL 4102160 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to compel production of plaintiff’s personal computers’ hard drives for inspection or to compel Plaintiff?s counsel to perform an independent search of the computer and other electronic devices to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced and where Defendant cited a prior search by Plaintiff?s counsel that yielded additional responsive documents and Plaintiff?s counsel?s admission that she had never examined the contents of Plaintiff?s personal computers, the court acknowledged that the rules do not create a right of direct access to a party?s electronic information systems, but, also acknowledged that the history of Plaintiff?s document productions suggested that he may not ?fully understand his search obligations,? and thus the court ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to ensure that all responsive documents on the computers and other devices were located and produced but declined to allow Defendant to conduct its own examination absent a demonstration of good cause

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer

Catagory:Case Summaries