Case Summaries – Page 162 – Electronic Discovery Law

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2013 WL 1277878 (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s fourth and fifth motions for sanctions resulting from the delayed production of relevant ESI for reasons ranging from alleged computer glitches to prior counsel?s failure to turn over highly relevant emails?and current counsel?s failure to timely discovery that those emails had previously been withheld?the court acknowledged current counsel?s efforts to rectify prior discovery abuses (addressed in prior sanctions motions) but nonetheless found that severe sanctions were warranted, including that defendant?s non-equitable counterclaims be stricken, that defendant pay the reasonable costs associated with the filing of the fourth and fifth motions for sanctions, that defendant or its counsel bear the cost of re-depositions (which they had previously offered to do), and that defendant pay a portion of the costs for plaintiff?s experts to supplement their reports

Nature of Case: Claims arising from contract for providing worker?s compensation insurance and claims administration

Electronic Data Involved: Misc. ESI

Hixson v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-00871-RCJ-PAL, 2013 WL 3677203 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: No sanctions for Defendant?s failure to produce a particular relevant email where the email was subject to Defendant?s automatic deletion policy and where the court ?was satisfied? that the email was in fact automatically deleted before Defendant was on notice that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Hostile Work Environment

Electronic Data Involved: Email subject to automatic deletion policy

Mycone Dental Supply Co., Inc. v. Creative Nail Design, Inc., No. C-12-00747-RS (DMR), 2013 WL 478053 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied third party’s request for return of allegedly privileged letters between third party and its patent lawyer because third party did not promptly take reasonable steps to rectify the error when it sent a clawback letter 49 days after it discovered the disclosure of at least one of the disputed documents during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; court rejected third party?s excuses and stated that third party ?should have recalled the document that was used in the deposition immediately after the deposition and then conducted a more thorough and timely investigation into the rest of the production after the initial clawback request?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Nine attorney letters totaling approximately 58 pages

Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264, 2013 WL 5979629 (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules

Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Waste Management of Texas, —S.W.3d—, 2013 WL 203603 (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied petition for mandamus relief from order compelling re-production of ESI in native format with metadata where Waste Management failed to establish that the order would result in undue burden, among other things; in its analysis of undue burden, the court concluded that a request for production in a ?reasonable manner? was a sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a party ?specify the form? in which ESI should be produced (rule 196.4) and that the estimated expense of $5,500.00 to accomplish reproduction did not pose an undue burden and reasoned, in part, that the order was not unduly burdensome because of Waste Management?s ?conscious decision? to remove metadata from the original production; opinion also addressed Waste Management?s claim that the matters to be disclosed included trade secrets, its claim that the order was overbroad, issues related to the preservation of claims for appeal, and the question of whether Waste Management?s arguments related to cost allocation could adequately be addressed on appeal

Nature of Case: Petition for writ of mandamus

Nobel Biocare USA, LLC v. Technique D?usinage Sinlab, Inc., No. 1:12cv730, 2013 WL 819911 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found costs associated with converting information into the agreed-upon format and electronically Bates stamping were analogous to copying costs and therefore taxable and thus allowed recovery of such costs over Defendant?s objection

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

Prowess, Inc. v. Raysearch Labs. AB, No. WDQ-11-1357, 2013 WL 1976077 (D. Md. May 9, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Pursuant to FRE 502(b), the court found privilege had not been waived where production of the at-issue document was inadvertent (instead of producing certain documents within a sub-folder, the whole folder was mistakenly produced), where reasonable steps were taken to prevent the disclosure (trained and supervised contract attorneys conducted privilege review and only 16 of 60,000 documents were inadvertently produced) and where reasonable and prompt steps were taken to rectify the error (plaintiff contacted defendant the day after it learned of the inadvertent production)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (infringement analysis)

Tapp v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 9131N, 2013 WL 3622969 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Lower court ?correctly determined that plaintiff?s mere possession and utilization of a Facebook account is an insufficient basis to compel plaintiff to provide access to the account or to have the court conduct an in camera inspection? and that ?to warrant discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s Facebook account?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Ameranth v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 2013 WL 636936 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of ?the entire source code tree for each accused product? where it found that Plaintiff had not shown the need to fully understand all operations as opposed to ?only those aspects accused in the infringement claims? and where the alleged burden of production was great; court ordered that production of relevant portions of source code must include original files names and be in native format

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Distefano v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC, No. CV 11-2893(JA)(AKT), 2013 WL 1339548 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found attorney?s duty to preserve was triggered upon receipt of correspondence terminating her representation but withheld judgment on issue of spoliation until hearing could be held

Nature of Case: Legal Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, computers

Catagory:Case Summaries