Case Summaries – Page 314 – Electronic Discovery Law

Hightower v. Heritage Acad. of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Observing that defendant had not argued that requested emails were not reasonably accessible and had not otherwise demonstrated that production of emails by four identified individuals on single topic over four-year period was unduly burdensome, court rejected defendant?s overbreadth and burdensome objections and ordered defendant to produce responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails sent or received by four members of defendant’s Board of Trustees pertaining to plaintiff and/or her employment

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 4940361 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Special Master recommended production of un-redacted source code repository, development ?twiki? and operational versions of programs at issue to experts and plaintiff?s counsel where access to current versions was ?reasonable? before experts drafted reports and where prior orders did not prohibit it; Special Master also recommended in-person confirmation that production included all required information as kept in usual course of business

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: source code repository, development “twiki”

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated court orders directing production, plaintiff failed to produce an un-redacted email upon which the case turned and claimed the email inaccessible because the computer on which it was stored had been destroyed and where plaintiff failed to pay court ordered sanctions for its failure to produce, court lifted earlier stay of dismissal and ordered plaintiff to pay additional $5000 sanction plus defendant?s attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Printouts from government websites were self-authenticating pursuant to ER 902(5) where the printouts were published online by a public authority and where the printouts contained identifying information, including the URL and the name of the public entity; acquisition of website printout through FOIA request where website was not available to the public did not prevent self-authentication of the printout; printouts were exceptions to the rule of hearsay pursuant to ER 803(8)

Nature of Case: Violations of FLSA and Wage and Hour Law

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy print outs of government websites

S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Applying Evidence Rule 502 and Five Factor Test, Court Determines No Waiver

Nov 26 2008

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 216 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff Rhoads Industries, inadvertently produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents. Defendants filed a motion to deem the claim of privilege waived arguing that plaintiff’s production was careless, that its response in seeking the return of the documents was delayed, and that it failed to produce complete and accurate privilege logs as to those documents.

In February 2007, Rhoads began preparing for its anticipated litigation against Building Materials Corporation of America. Realizing the likelihood of extensive electronic discovery, Rhoads directed its IT consultant to research software to assist with the electronic discovery effort. The IT consultant eventually purchased Discovery Attender (or “Sherpa”) to perform the necessary electronic data searches. Shortly thereafter, the IT consultant and his team began work to identify locations of potentially relevant information.

Court Reverses Order Denying Sanctions and Remands Case for Reconsideration Where Plaintiff Hired Expert to “Fix” Computer but Failed to Inform Expert of Ongoing Duty to Preserve and Evidence was Destroyed

Nov 26 2008

Barnett v. Simmons, 197 P.3d 12, 2008 OK 100 (2008)

In this case, plaintiff Barnett sued defendant Rock Oil Company seeking unpaid oil royalties allegedly owed to him. Discovery in the case established that plaintiff maintained files on his computer related to his claims against Rock Oil. Accordingly, Rock Oil sought production of plaintiff’s hard drive. Plaintiff objected, but the parties attempted to reach agreement as to how to accomplish production. No agreement was reached. Rock Oil filed a motion to compel and the court granted the motion. Although the parties were then able to agree on a neutral examiner, the plaintiff dismissed his claims prior to the examination, but expressed his intent to re-file within three months.

Catagory:Case Summaries