Case Summaries – Page 296 – Electronic Discovery Law

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to file joint status report describing results of targeted search of defendant’s data backup system with respect to particular witness and stating their respective positions on issue of whether such results warranted further search of data backup system for emails authored by or addressed to other individuals

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

Electronic Data Involved: All emails relating to plaintiff or his compensation generated in past ten years by plaintiff and other Wachovia employees

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

Yeisley v. PA State Police, 2008 WL 906465 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based on non-production of email, court ordered defendants to promptly undertake requisite search of electronic records and warned: ?To the extent that electronic records may have been lost during the pendency of this litigation as a result of the failure to conduct an adequate search of this font of information prior to this time, sanctions may be appropriate.?

Nature of Case: Civil rights litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery issues, court set protocol for production of certain documents by non-party: (1) plaintiffs to specify documents sought in native format with metadata; (2) within 10 days, non-party to file with court an estimate of the cost of production of all documents; (3) within 10 days, plaintiffs to pay into court?s registry total sum of non-party?s estimate, or limit request to reduce estimated costs; (4) within 21 days, non-party to produce those documents or electronic files to plaintiffs in their original format with metadata; (5) within 10 days, non-party to file bill of actual costs incurred; (6) court to review costs and may appoint expert to help court determine reasonableness; (7) court to enter order directing clerk to pay non-party reasonable sum

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology

Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced ESI as TIFF images and plaintiffs sought order compelling compliance with RFP instruction to ?produce documents in electronic form in the most accessible, searchable, maneuverable and common medium available to [defendant],? arguing that documents must be produced in native file format with metadata or in searchable OCR format, court declined to hold that 2005 Court of Chancery Rules required OCR format or native file format, including metadata, without a particularized showing of need; court found defendant?s proposal to provide searchable ?extracted text? was acceptable compromise and ordered production of ?extracted text? contingent on plaintiffs? agreement to reimburse all of defendant?s related expenses given plaintiffs? failure to timely object to non-searchable TIFF format

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Catagory:Case Summaries