Case Summaries – Page 206 – Electronic Discovery Law

People v. Chromik, No. 3-09-0686, 2011 WL 1346923 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Transcript of text messages created when student read the messages to her principal who typed them into a Word document and which were admittedly altered by spell check were properly admitted as evidence by the trial court where the trial court ?ensured that all knew the document was exactly what it purported to be: a transcription of the victim?s reading of the text messages?; where both parties were allowed to argue over interpretation; where defendant was allowed to present evidence that indicated spell check likely resulted in alterations; where the dates and time contained on the transcription and attributed to text messages from defendant mirrored the dates and times identified in the phone company?s records; and where the victim testified as to the content of the messages and defendant did not deny sending them

Nature of Case: Criminal sexual assault

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

SPM Resorts, Inc. v. Diamond Resorts Mgmt., Inc., 65 So.3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted certiorari review and quashed order for plaintiff to pay half the cost of inspection of its own computers where the court reasoned that ?[t]o place a substantial financial burden on a party relating to the production of its adversary?s discovery request does nothing more than require a party to fund its adversaries litigation? and where the order was ?unreasonable and unduly oppressive and [wa]s a departure from the essential requirements of the law.?

Nature of Case: Interference with business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Computer inspection

Kosher Sports Inc. v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, No. 10-CV-2618 (JBW), 2011 WL 3471508 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Commonwealth Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Smith, No. 3435 EDA 2009, 2011 WL 489704 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s exclusion of electronic business records obtained by the plaintiff from the former holders of defendant?s debt, where the trial court properly concluded that the a representative of the plaintiff corporation was not ?the right person to establish the Citibank records? (because he was not familiar with how the records were created or maintained and had no personal knowledge of the entries on the at-issue spreadsheet, for example) and held that ?CPS failed to establish the trustworthiness and reliability of the records sufficiently to permit their admission into evidence? pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(6), among other things

Nature of Case: Action to collect credit card debt

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where ?severe spoliation sanctions, such as an adverse inference instruction, are only appropriate upon a showing of bad faith,? the circuit court affirmed the lower court?s denial of plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that the accused party intentionally destroyed the relevant video tape ?or acted with bad faith or gross negligence in respect to it?

Nature of Case: False arrest, defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Francisco v. Verizon S., Inc., 272 F.R.D. 436 (E.D. Va. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s request for recovery of costs incurred in processing, storage, and production of ESI

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., No. 04-cv-02686-WDM-MEH, 2011 WL 2297661 (D. Colo. June 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied request for taxation of costs related to conversion of documents into electronic format for discovery purposes where defendant failed to establish that the conversion costs were ?necessarily incurred in the case preparation?; court denied motion for taxation of costs related to creation of secure database in furtherance of responding to a legitimate discovery request where the court was not authorized to award such costs pursuant to the relevant statute and where it was unaware of authority allowing adjustments to the division of costs based on undue burden, an argument that was available ?during the discovery process?

Electronic Data Involved: Conversion of ESI

E.E.O.C. v. DHL Express, No. 10 C 6139, 2011 WL 6825516 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where DHL produced ?28,000 spreadsheets worth of information? with an index containing metadata for each spreadsheet and any emails to which the spreadsheets were attached but where plaintiff nonetheless claimed that the burden of sifting through the spreadsheets was unduly onerous and sought to compel production of information to identify each spreadsheet and that defendant organize them according to request, the court noted its authority under Rule 34 to impose requirements ?different from those in the rule? and ordered defendant to identify which request each spreadsheet or group of spreadsheets was responsive to and to provide an explanation for spreadsheets not attached to an email

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

United States v. Halliburton, Co., 272 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court declined to compel defendants to conduct additional searching where defendants established the significant efforts already undertaken to locate and produce responsive materials and where plaintiff made ?no showing whatsoever . . . that those emails not produced will make the existence of some crucial facts more likely than not?, the court concluded that ?the search relator demands cannot possibly be justified when one balances its cost against its utility.?; court went on to establish that the inability to find certain information, despite a duty to preserve, did not negate the ability of a party to rely on Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to argue against additional searching

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Additional searching for ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries