Case Summaries – Page 255 – Electronic Discovery Law

Supreme Court of Washington Holds Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Imposing $8,000,000 Default Judgment Pursuant to CR 37 for Defendant’s Willful Discovery Violations

Dec 11 2009

Magaña v. Hyundai Motor Am., 220 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2009)

Plaintiff sustained injuries in an automobile accident that he alleged were caused in part by a defective seat design which allowed the seat to collapse. The case went to trial and plaintiff was awarded $8,000,000. The verdict was reversed on appeal for reasons related to plaintiff’s expert’s testimony and a new trial on the issue of liability was ordered.

Trial Court Violated Attorney-Client Privilege by Ordering In Camera Review

Dec 03 2009

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, S163335 (Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

In 2000, Costco hired outside counsel to provide legal advice regarding the applicability of certain wage and overtime laws to its warehouse managers. In furtherance of providing such advice, counsel spoke with two managers Costco had made available to her. Thereafter, she provided Costco with a 22-page opinion letter addressing the question at issue. Several years later, plaintiffs in a class action against Costco sought to compel production of the relevant opinion letter arguing that the letter contained unprivileged information and that Costco had placed the contents in issue thereby waiving the privilege.

To resolve the question, the court ordered the letter be reviewed by a discovery referee who subsequently recommended production of the letter with heavy redactions. The referee reasoned that the factual information therein was not privileged and that while interviewing the two managers, the attorney had acted not as an attorney but as a fact finder. The trial court adopted the recommendation and ordered the letter produced. On appeal (and without ruling on the merits of the trial court’s order or its decision to refer the letter to a discovery referee for review), the court affirmed the order reasoning that Costco had failed to establish that the production would cause irreparable harm. The issue was appealed to the Supreme Court of California.

Finding Back-up Tapes “Not Reasonably Accessible” Court Declines to Compel Restoration of All but One Tape; No Sanctions for Deletion of Email Absent Evidence of Duty to Preserve or Showing of Bad Faith

Dec 03 2009

Calixto v. Watson Bowman Acme Corp., 2009 WL 3823390 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009)

In this breach of contract litigation, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Watson Bowman Acme Corporation (“WABO”) to “remedy its spoliation of documents” by restoring and searching back-up tapes that potentially contained copies of emails that were deleted. Plaintiff also sought sanctions for the alleged spoliation. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the restoration of all back-up tapes, following its determination that the burden and cost of such restoration rendered the documents not reasonably accessible and upon finding that plaintiff failed to establish good cause for such a search. However, as to a one tape determined to potentially contain the relevant deleted emails, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered the tape be restored and searched. Regarding sanctions, the court denied plaintiff’s motion absent a clear indication of a duty to preserve at the time of the deletion and absent any evidence of bad faith.

Communications with Attorney Using Company Computer and Email Account Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege

Dec 01 2009

Alamar Ranch, LLC v. City of Boise, 2009 WL 3669741 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009)

In this case arising from a land use and permitting dispute, the court ruled that emails sent by a non-party to her attorney using her work computer and work-assigned email address were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. In so holding, the court relied in large part upon the existence of company policy which put the employee on notice that her emails were subject to monitoring and were not confidential. Emails sent by the attorney to the employee’s work account were likewise unprotected where the attorney was on notice of the employee’s use of company email and should have recognized the risk that such emails were unprotected. As for emails sent to the attorney by other clients and copied to the employee, the court reasoned that such emails retained their privileged status where the senders (non-employees of the relevant company) were not on notice of the potential exposure of their emails to outside scrutiny.

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants

Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where respondents argued that the exculpatory information sought was not ?reasonably available? under the relevant section of the case management order because several separate searches would be required in order to access all relevant databases, court stated that respondents appeared to misinterpret the relevant section to require production of ?easily available? information rather than ?reasonably available? information and granted petitioner?s motion to enforce the case management order and to allow searching of the relevant databases pursuant thereto

Electronic Data Involved: Database information accessed through Intellink search tool

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

United States v. Cinergy, Corp., 2009 WL 6327414 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237 SJO (FMOx), 2009 WL 10655335 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Am. Coal Sales Co. v. Nova Scotia Power, Inc., 2009 WL 467576 (S. D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiff ?took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent disclosures by having two attorneys review documents prior to production; that inadvertent production of one document out of over 2,000 documents produced does not weigh in favor of waiver; that the extent of the waiver was not great because the document had not worked its way into the fabric of the litigation; that Plaintiff took prompt measures to rectify the disclosure; and that the overriding interests of justice and fairness did not conclusively counsel in favor of waiver,? court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order preventing use of inadvertently disclosed email; court found ER 502 applicable, despite application of alternative five-factor test by magistrate, and determined that court?s application of ER 502 did not prevent review of magistrate?s ruling where ER 502 and five-factor test were sufficiently consistent (see FN 1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries