Case Summaries – Page 179 – Electronic Discovery Law

Grabenstein v. Arrow Elecs., Inc., No. 10-cv-02348-MSK-KLM, 2012 WL 1388595 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions where plaintiff was unable to support her allegation that additional relevant emails existed that were not produced and where, despite a violation of the duty to preserve ?personnel or employment records? pursuant to federal law, the only copies of relevant emails that were proven to exist had been provided to plaintiff and plaintiff provided no evidence that the emails (that were not preserved in violation of federal law) were destroyed in bad faith or other than in the normal course of business

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 1414070 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had ?practical ability? to obtain documents from third-party consultant, and thus ?control? of the documents for purposes of discovery, but declined to impose sanctions, despite finding that plaintiff had failed to issue a litigation hold letter and to ensure that its consultant?s records were being preserved, where investigation revealed that limited responsive documents were recovered from the consultant?s backup tapes and that only one was never produced and thus, plaintiff and its consultant had rebutted the suggestion that defendant was prejudiced; affirmed by District Court 2012 WL 1849101

Nature of Case: claims arising from construction contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, No. 10-CV-00569A(F), 2012 WL 95362 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff acted to avoid compliance with court?s order to produce information related to email accounts, including passwords, by repeatedly filing motions to stay discovery and by modifying the consent forms related to the examination of his email accounts to effectively delay the search, despite the court?s denial of his motions to stay discovery, the court ordered civil contempt sanctions and ordered plaintiff to pay $5,000 to the court and also ordered payment of defendants? attorneys? fees and costs related to Defendants? Accelerated Motion to Compel, necessitated by plaintiff?s dilatory behavior

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Access to emails (passwords, etc.) for forensic examination

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 462 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs destroyed paper copies of records that were also maintained in electronic format (by a third party) despite anticipation of litigation, court ordered discovery reopened for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to take the necessary action to acquire the electronic records and to provide them to defendant at their own cost and indicated that if the records were no longer in the third party?s possession, the court would ?reconsider its ruling? where the absence of those records would result in a greater degree of prejudice to the defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of hard copy records that had been destroyed

Chevron Corp. v. Wienberg Group, No. 11-406 (JMF), 2012 WL 4480697 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the state of the ?modern privilege log? Judge Grimm noted the strong trend toward mechanically produced privilege logs with boilerplate information which do not sufficiently describe the documents and the nature of the privilege and ordered defendant to produce factual work product and to properly describe the redacted portions and indicated that he would hold defendant to their 26(g) obligations ?ruthlessly?

Nature of Case: Environmental damages

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged/work product ESI

AL Noaimi v. Zaid, No. 11-11560EFM, 2012 WL 4758048 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to quash defendants? subpoena to one of plaintiffs? email providers where plaintiffs? assertions of breadth and burden were merely conclusory and were unsupported by evidence, where defendants agreed to allow plaintiffs? counsel to review the emails before production to defendants, and where the court?s power to compel the plaintiff to consent to the isp?s production circumvented any problems with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Nature of Case: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from internet service provider (ISP)

Winchell v. Lopiccolo, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5933033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged brain trauma and impaired cognitive functioning and Defendants therefore sought unfettered access to Plaintiff?s Facebook page ?for the purpose of discovering what it reveals about Plaintiff?s ?ability to portray cognitive function?? (Defendants asserted that even the layout of the page would demonstrate cognitive function), the court denied the motion upon finding the request was overbroad

Nature of Case: Claims related to injuries resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents (Facebook)

Tabon v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Health Sys. No. 10-cv-2781, 2012 WL 2953216 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Investigation file, original medical records, “comments section” of medical records from computer system

Am. Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc. v. Roofers Mart, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-19 (CEJ), 2012 WL 2992627 (E.D. Mo. July 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant reinstalled the operating system on his personal laptop two days after his first deposition (where he was informed a request for ESI would be forthcoming) claiming that he did so to ensure that he did not possess Plaintiff?s proprietary information, and where Defendant had previously deleted the information on a relevant flash drive, the court found Defendant had acted intentionally and that Plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss and ordered an adverse inference allowing, but not requiring, the jury to infer that the deleted information was unfavorable to Defendant and also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys? fees and costs connected with bringing the motion for sanctions; court acknowledged applicability of agency law in determining whether to impose sanctions against a party for spoliation by its employees but declined to do so in the present case

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., No. 11-2090-CM-DJW, 2012 WL 940270 (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that ?Defendant?s failure to produce any ESI, such as emails, attachments, exhibits, and word processing documents raise[d] justifiable concerns that Defendant may have 1) failed to preserve relevant evidence, or 2) failed to conduct a reasonable search for ESI responsive to Plaintiff?s discovery requests? and thus scheduled an evidentiary hearing and ordered Defendant to be prepared to present evidence on its preservation and search efforts (specific topics identified in court?s order)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Miscellaneous ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries