Case Summaries – Page 186 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mahaffey v. Marriot Int?l, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4833370 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of video tape and hard copy where, as to the video tape, the court determined that defendant ?could not reasonably have known? that it had an obligation to preserve the at-issue video at the time it was destroyed, and that no sanctions were therefore merited and where, as to the hard copy documents, the plaintiff was unable to establish that the at-issue documents actually existed or that, if they did, they were destroyed with the requisite culpable state of mind (where the alleged spoliation resulted from a broken sprinkler which flooded a storage room), and where even if defendant had been negligent, plaintiff could not establish that the allegedly destroyed evidence was relevant to his claims

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from alleged elevator accident

Electronic Data Involved: Video, hard copy

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 Civ. 6811(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering burdensome nature of subpoenas to non-parties, court found that cost shifting was appropriate and ordered plaintiff to bear the search, collection and production costs associated with the non-parties? compliance with the subpoenas; non-parties? were ordered to bear their own costs associated with privilege review, but, in order to give them ?the option of conducting a more economical analysis while minimizing the risk of waiver,? the court entered a non-waiver order pursuant to Rule 502(d) that would preclude the disclosure of privileged documents from resulting in waiver in any proceeding

Nature of Case: Alleged breach of insurance policies and violations of various related laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-275-D, 2012 WL 6809721 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to award costs for imaging electronic information for document production where the court found that ?those costs fall within ?the cost of making copies of any materials? and were ?necessarily obtained for use in the case?? pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4) but declined to award costs incurred to purchase hard drives for document production where the court reasoned that the drives were reusable and ?properly considered overhead.?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable cost related to production of ESI

Reid v. Ingerman Smith, LLP, No. CV 2012-0307(ILG)(MDG), 2012 WL 6720752 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiffs? social media content could be relevant to her claims, court ordered photos, communications and posts since January 2008 be produced to Plaintiff?s counsel for review and that relevant portions be produced in accordance with the court?s specific instructions (e.g., photos posted by third parties may be subject to production if relevant, posts and communications by third parties are relevant to the extent they contain observations of the plaintiff, etc.)

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Social media (e.g., Facebook)

Stooksbury v. Ross, No. 3:09-CV-498, 2012 WL 3779113 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing post-judgment discovery issues, including plaintiff and receiver?s request to have certain hard drives imaged, court rejected defendants? claim that certain computers contained privileged information where those assets were sold to a third-party and thus any privilege was waived; court further ordered that personal computer and ipad belonging to an individual defendant should be imaged for preservation purposes, to be retained by the expert performing such imaging pending further orders from the court

Electronic Data Involved: Business and personal hard drives and ipad

Abbot Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., No. CV-08-S-543-NE, 2012 WL 7810970 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to allow recovery of costs related to maintenance of an electronic discovery database but allowed recovery of costs related to ?processing of electronic documents, including conversion of native files to ?TIFF? format for production to Abbott; conversion of document[s] from ?TIFF? format to a searchable format; importing and loading of documents to an electronic database; production of electronic documents; and the associated project and technical support?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI taxable costs

Brocade Commc?ns Sys. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 10-CV-03428-LHK, 2012 WL 70428 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff had shown good cause for requiring production of ?not reasonably accessible information,? the court granted plaintiff?s motion to inspect an individual defendant?s hard drive noting that such inspections had been allowed by other courts in cases of alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and further citing the relevance of the hard drive?s contents to the underlying claims, the inability to obtain the evidence elsewhere, and defendant?s inability to explain its statement that the hard drive in question had been ?recycled?; court held that plaintiff was ?not entitled to set the conditions of the inspection unilaterally nor select the person who will perform it? and ordered the parties to confer to agree on a protocol

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Moore v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. C 07-03850 SI, 2012 WL 669531 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendant?s motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference where the court determined plaintiff had a duty to preserve and that the deliberate wiping of his hard drive was in bad faith but declined to impose monetary sanctions or dismissal where plaintiff?s actions were not found to be sufficiently egregious, where plaintiff was forthcoming about the spoliation and his reasons (to protect personal and privileged information contained on the work-issued laptop), and where defendant had a substantial amount of the deleted material on backup tapes, etc. because of its backup practices

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from laptop

Tracy v. NVR, Inc., No. 04-CV-6541L, 2012 WL 1067889 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought to compel production of defendant?s litigation hold and a list of its recipients, court identified the underlying question as whether defendant?s duty to preserve extended to all potential opt-in plaintiffs and found that plaintiffs? significant delay in moving for conditional certification and the indirect nature of the evidence sought distinguished the case from Pippins v. KPMG and that plaintiffs failed to make the necessary preliminary showing of spoliation (which would justify production of the litigation hold notice) because they did not establish ?that documents that should have been preserved? were lost or destroyed; court granted defendant?s motion for sanctions for opt-in plaintiff?s spoliation of hard copy evidence (originals of a calendar indicating her daily activities, two disparate copies of which had been produced) and ordered that she be precluded from testifying as to her daily work activities during a three year period

Nature of Case: FLSA Class action

Electronic Data Involved: litigation hold notice, hard copy calendar

In re Jordan, —S.W.3d—, 2012 WL 1098275 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court conditionally granted writ of mandamus upon finding that In re Weekley Homes was controlling and that the lower court had abused its discretion by not following the procedures elaborated therein, including that the party who was granted access to relator?s computer (through a forensic examiner) failed to explain its search methodology or its expert’s credentials and that there was no evidence that the court considered a protective order

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Catagory:Case Summaries