Case Summaries – Page 212 – Electronic Discovery Law

Veolia Transp. Servs. v. Evanson, No. CV-10-01392-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5909917 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, prior to being named a party to the action, defendant failed to preserve ESI (including failing to pay a vendor for imaging her hard drive, which resulted in the vendor’s destruction of the image) despite the receipt of two subpoenas, where the court found the spoliation to be at least willful, and where the circumstances surrounding the spoliation permitted an inference that the information destroyed was highly relevant to the litigation, court found an entry of default was appropriate and set a hearing to determine the appropriate damages

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, defamation, etc. arising from anonymous emails sent to several parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Denim N. Amer. Holdings, LLC v. Swift Textiles LLC, 816 F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite noting that it was ?undisputed? that plaintiffs? witnesses did not modify their practice of ?deleting most emails within a short time of receiving them? even after they reasonably anticipated litigation, the court declined to impose an adverse inference where the record supported a finding that the witnesses ?destroyed the emails in the ordinary course of business unmotivated by any bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Bell v. Callaway Partners, LLC, 1:06-CV-1993-CC, 2011 WL 13175079 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs for expenses Defendants incurred for document scanning or imaging given that the parties agreed Defendants would produce documents in electronic format. The Court declined to allow recovery of costs for services and products other than the reproduction of documents such as Bates labeling, OCR formatting, CD creation, CD archival and PDF to TIFF Conversion stating that although such services and products assist in document review, they ?extend beyond mere copying and were unnecessary.?

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

Uhlig LLC v. Shirley, No. 6:08-cv-01208-JMC, 2011 WL 2728445 (D.S.C. July 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to modify imaging protocol and, after indicating its belief that ?the use of hash values eliminates the need for search limitations,? ordered a protocol modification that included an order for the expert to search for hash values to identify documents present on more than one specified computer/device

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer, storage devices

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Harmon v. Lighthouse Capital Funding, Inc. (In re Harmon), 2011 WL 302859 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Providing a detailed explanation of defendant?s and counsel?s discovery abuses, including failing to search for internal emails, ignoring plaintiff?s subpoena, and counsel?s offering of ?evasive and unfounded testimony in an effort to rationalize his inexcusable non-production? of certain relevant (and repeatedly requested) documents, among other things, the court denied defendant?s motion for reconsideration and upheld as a sanction the establishment of a particular fact in plaintiff?s favor, namely that Lighthouse did not establish an escrow account in accord with its obligations under its agreement with plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, bank statements

U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, No. 09-23222-CIV, 2011 WL 1102822 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where Bates labeling documents already produced in native format would have required defendants to convert the documents to an alternative format and would have cost between $16,000 and $75,000, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel Bates labeling, despite the requirement to do so as laid out in the Discovery Practices Handbook appended to the local rules in the Southern District of Florida

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud in the inducement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in native format

Roth v. Sloan, No. 1:08 CV 1656, 2011 WL 1298498 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that the accused spoliator had custody and control of the allegedly spoliated audiotape and where the plaintiff was not prejudiced in light of his receipt of a transcript of the tape

Nature of Case: Witness intimidation, retaliation, defamation or false-light invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

United States v. Hock Chee Koo, No. 09-321-(2,3)-KI, 2011 WL 777965 (D. Or. Mar. 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a computer analyst made a backup image of certain files on defendant?s computer and returned the laptop to defendant?s employer, who proceeded to look through the files, etc. before supplying the backup image and the laptop to the FBI, and where the FBI then made an image of the backup image and an image of the entire laptop, the court held that the image of the backup image, reflecting some of the contents of the laptop before the employer looked through the laptop?s files, could be admitted as proof of what the FBI obtained from the employer AND as evidence of some of the contents of the laptop (the backup image did not include the entire contents of the laptop); court held that FBI?s image of the whole laptop (taken after the employer had looked through the files, etc. and thus changed metadata, etc.) could be admitted as evidence of what was obtained by the FBI from the employer, but cold not be offered to prove the contents of the laptop while in defendant?s possession

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Backup image and image of contents of laptop

Catagory:Case Summaries