Case Summaries – Page 165 – Electronic Discovery Law

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 12-01971-CW-(KAW), 2013 WL 633406 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: ?In light of the availability of source code analyzer tools and the extraordinary burden that a compiler would impose on [Defendant], the court denie[d] [Plaintiff?s] request for a compiler for source code review?; court also declined to compel defendant?s production of printouts of 14 complete files (of source code) and ordered the parties to meet to determine which limited portions of the source code would be produced in hard copy and to arrange for [Plaintiff?s] experts to inspect the complete file ?to determine the limited portions of the source code needed, if necessary.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code, compiler software

Simms v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc., 2013 WL 49756 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case

Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC v. Angulo, —F.3d—, 2013 WL 2928094 (8th Cir. June 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in giving a spoliation instruction for a party?s failure to preserve satellite tracking information relevant to the whereabouts of its drivers at the time of the at-issue crash, where trial court was ?abundantly clear? that it believed the destruction was intentional, even if it did not specifically say ?bad faith? and where the victim/plaintiff was prejudiced by the failure to preserve; although the sanctioned party did produce a print out alleged to reflect the relevant satellite information, questions regarding the party?s veracity led the court to mistrust the accuracy of the document which contributed to the imposition of sanctions

Nature of Case: Malpractice related to underlying case involving automobile accident and resulting injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Satellite tracking data

Altercare Inc. v. Clark, No. 12CA010211, 2013 WL 3356577 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve plaintiff?s work computer at a time when litigation should have been reasonably foreseeable (because plaintiff?s employment ended under ?contentious? circumstances and because plaintiff was an attorney) and despite receipt of a specific written request for preservation, the trial court did not err in dismissing defendant?s claims against the plaintiff as a sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work computer / computer hard drive

Surfcast v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-333-JAW, 2013 WL 4039413 (D. Me. Aug. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Despite confidentiality order that inadvertent production would not result in waiver, court found privilege was waived as to email (originally produced in hard copy) that was privileged ?on its face? (it sought ?lagal? [sic] advice and had indications that there were additional recipients to the email not apparent on the hard copy version, one of which turned out to be an attorney) and which was utilized in a deposition for approximately 30 minutes without Plaintiff?s objection; court reasoned that the confidentiality order could not be ?reasonably? read to protect against waiver under ?any and all circumstances? and that instead it established only that ?mere inadvertent production, standing alone, does not constitute waiver.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email (originally produce in hard copy but also available electronically)

Newill v. Campbell Transportation Co., No. 2:12-cv-1344, 2013 WL 6002349 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation for responsive materials prior to serving its Initial Disclosures and responding to Plaintiff?s first requests for production where defendant failed to discover relevant photographs of the accident site taken by a former employee despite knowing that it was ?standard procedure? for such photographs to be taken; responding to Defendant?s claim that it needn?t extend its investigation to former employees, the court noted that ?[a]nalyzing the practical ability of corporations to obtain work-related documents from former employees, courts insist that corporations, at the very least, ask their former employees to cooperate before asserting that they have no control over documents in the former employees’ possession.? Export?Import Bank, 233 F.R.D. at 341 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Nature of Case: Jones Act negligence case

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Dataflow, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-127 (LEK/DEP), 2013 WL 6992130 (N.D.N.Y. June 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Failure to institute litigation hold, which resulted in automatic deletion of relevant e-mails as part of defendant’s system-wide upgrade, and defendant’s excessive delay in disclosing such facts, constituted gross negligence; magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions be granted and that trial court issue and adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed e-mails and award plaintiff its costs in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail

Goldberg v. 401 N. Wabash Venture LLC, No. 09 C 6455, 2013 WL 4506071 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Noting that it was undisputed that e-discovery costs were available as taxable costs under Section 1920(4), but that there was scant legal authority in the circuit and district giving litigants guidance in seeking those costs, court deducted one-half of defendants’ request for costs related to electronically processing, hosting, and producing documents in discovery as well as electronically processing both sides’ trial exhibits, and awarded defendants $3,454 in e-discovery costs

Nature of Case: Commercial litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and trial exhibits

Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 5655984 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual

Catagory:Case Summaries