Case Summaries – Page 192 – Electronic Discovery Law

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2012 WL 3822129 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for electronic discovery costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 USC 1920 where Defendant?s bill of costs included many line item descriptions for ?intellectual effort? such as ?analyzing the discovery documents,? preparing for and participating in a ?kickoff call? and other communications with co-workers and vendors

Nature of Case: Patent and Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to electronic discovery

St. Louis Produce Mkt. v. Hughes, No. 4:09CV1912 RWS, 2012 WL 4378194 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In a case where defendant tried to ?pull a fast one? by altering material terms to a contract and inducing plaintiff to sign it, defendant sought but was repeatedly unable to procure production of defendant?s laptop — which it suspected was used to alter the contract — and when the laptop was produced, it had been substantially damaged. Moreover, evidence indicated that defendant had destroyed relevant cell phone records and emails and that defendant?s counsel made repeated misrepresentations to the court. Thus, the court struck defendant?s pleadings as a sanction.

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment that contract was invalid because procured by fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Doe, No. 12 Civ. 4786(BSJ)(KNF), 2012 WL 4832816 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to Paypal Inc purportedly intended to determine the identity of an alleged copyright infringer where plaintiff failed to sustain their burden of making a clear and specific showing of good cause and sufficient reason why there motion was necessary, including because plaintiff failed to assert that Doe defendant lived in the relevant judicial district, because plaintiff failed to establish that they exhausted traditional avenues of identification and because the subpoena was overly broad, among other reasons

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service provider (ISP)

Dokho v. Jablonowski, No. 306082, 2012 WL 5853754 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Appellate court found that trial court did not err in failing to grant Plaintiff?s request for an adverse presumption for insurance company?s failure to preserve a relevant file that was instead purged pursuant to the company?s document retention policy where Plaintiff provided no evidence of fraudulent conduct or intentional destruction; court further noted that Plaintiff failed to explain how the failure to provide an adverse inference (a lesser sanction than an adverse presumption) altered the court?s ?summary disposition analysis? reasoning that the court was already required to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party

Nature of Case: Claims arising from a slip and fall involving questions related to insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Underwriting file

Lab. Corp. of Am. v. United States, —Fed. Cl.—, 2012 WL 6861487 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant?s automatic purge of contents from a relevant website following closure of bidding process, court found defendant was on notice of obligation to preserve by virtue of Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring preservation of ?all the contract documents associated with procurement,? that the United States had been negligent in failing to preserve the information, and that plaintiff was prejudiced and, focusing on the need to impose the least harsh sanction, ordered that defendant would be prohibited from relying upon any secondary evidence regarding what Plaintiff saw on the relevant website (the question of what Plaintiff saw on the website and therefore what Plaintiff knew was a major issue in the case)

Nature of Case: Pre-award bid protest

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of website used to submit bids

Yeung v. Dickman, No. 1 CA-CV 11-0735 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Noting that the ?offending party?s degree of fault and the corresponding prejudice suffered by the non-offending party? were the ?most important? factors for consideration when determining whether to impose sanctions, court denied request for spoliation sanctions where the information Plaintiff alleged was spoliated was not relevant to the issues in the case, where Plaintiff merely speculated that the lost information would support his case, and where Plaintiff could have obtained the information from third parties but chose not to

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives containing certain allegedly relevant communications

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

Catagory:Case Summaries