Case Summaries – Page 175 – Electronic Discovery Law

Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Okla., No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 3986344 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2012); No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 4363752 (Sept. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where independent forensic examiner was tasked with determining whether plaintiff?s data was present on defendant?s laptop and with maintaining an image of defendant?s laptop sealed from inspection, but where plaintiff reserved the right seek discovery and thereafter subpoened the non-party investigator to produce the mirror image of defendant?s laptop, magistrate judge found that rule 45 subpoena was an appropriate discovery method and denied defendant?s motion to quash; on emergency appeal, the District Court noted that allowing direct inspection of a party?s hard drive was not routine, that because of the presence of potentially privileged material, even plaintiff?s expert should not have access to the entire hard drive without allowing defendant?s to object to the production of certain information and that in light of the short time before trial it was ?simply too late?; court noted that this ?predicament? was one plaintiff ?created itself? by waiting to seek access to the hard drive despite knowing for months of the potential that its data was present there

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., No. 11 Civ. 8405 (CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 6732905 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production and declined to shift defendant?s discovery costs where defendant addressed only two of seven factors to be considered when seeking to shift costs but sua sponte entered a 502(d) order to ease defendant?s production burden if they chose to avail themselves of it; court?s analysis made clear that counsel?s resources are not an appropriate consideration in a cost shifting analysis

Nature of Case: Claims arising from insurance company’s alleged improper rate increase

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

King v. Rozek Co., No. 11-cv-01685-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 2884788 (D. Colo. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, based on discrepancies in certain witnesses? testimony, Plaintiff believed that relevant investigation notes/computer journal entries were created on a date later than the date alleged by the defendant, and where the creation date was relevant to the issues in the case, the court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel a forensic investigation of the computer on which the evidence was created, but sua sponte issued a protective order that would allow Plaintiff?s forensic investigator to make a mirror image of the at-issue computer but would limit his investigation to the question of when the notes were made or modified and which prohibited the investigator from accessing or viewing information not relevant to that discreet issue

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Scott Process Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, No. 2012CV00021, 2012 WL 6617363 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused discretion in granting motion to compel forensic imaging of third party?s devices where the record did not present a history of discovery violations or non-compliance sufficient to justify such intrusion and where the court?s order permitted ?unfettered forensic imaging? and contained none of the protections required to conduct forensic analysis (e.g., a neutral third-party examiner, production to counsel for privilege review prior to production to opposing counsel, etc.)

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic imaging

Townsend v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., No. 11AP-672, 2012 WL 2467047 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to conduct forensic analysis of defendant?s email and electronic data systems where defendant?s employee admitted to sending a highly relevant email that was never produced and where defendant failed to establish that production ?would incur undue burden or expense?; court?s analysis included consideration of whether deleted emails were discoverable (yes) and the need for a protocol to protect the producing party?s privilege, confidential information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Finnerty v. Stiefel Labs. Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that costs related to the creation of an electronic database solely for the benefit of Plaintiff?s counsel were not taxable as fees for exemplification

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs

In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database

City of Alameda, CA v. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund, Nos. C 08-4575 SI; C 09-1437 SI, 2012 WL 17756 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found costs related to ?OCR and metadata extraction? were not recoverable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fisher v. Fisher, No. WDQ-11-11038, 2012 WL 2050785 (D. Md. June 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: After carefully laying out the law surrounding document requests/productions, court evaluated plaintiff?s motion to compel and, invoking principles of proportionality, granted in part and denied in part the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries