Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 16

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Ablan v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 11 CV 4493, 2014 WL 6704293 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, district court granted defendants? motion to strike plaintiffs? additional damages claim as sanction for plaintiffs? tardy production of documents relating to additional damages claim, which production occurred more then three months after discovery period closed, as plaintiffs offered no justification for failing to timely produce the documents and defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiffs were allowed to rely on the new evidence to defeat summary judgment or at trial; court further awarded defendants their attorneys? fees incurred in filing the motion, but denied defendants? request for expert costs associated with reviewing the new information because defendants? experts would have reviewed any new information even if it had been timely, and there was no evidence that defendants? experts had to revise their expert reports due to the belated production, and therefore no excess expert costs resulted from the late production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents on eight CD-ROMS

Robinson v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS, 2014 WL 3845775 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: A clearly exasperated court described the parties’ discovery efforts to date, highlighted the inconsistencies/incompleteness in response, “as well as the complete cacophony of the San Joaquin County e-mail systems and retrieval,” and issued one final, specific order to be followed by defendant lest serious sanctions issue; among other things, court ordered defendant to perform computer-by-computer search for all current employees in order that any emails relating to plaintiff’s discrimination claims or job performance from 2007 to present may be produced, acknowledging that substantial work would be required for compliance but that judge was “not responsible for the County’s email systems which apparently have been designed for individual control and with no concern for litigation responsibilities”

Freedman v. Weatherford Int?l, Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121(LAK)(JCF), 2014 WL 3767034 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court considered plaintiffs? motion to compel production of ?certain reports comparing the results of the defendants document search and production in this case with? the search terms proposed by the plaintiff and with searches and productions related to prior investigations but denied the motion upon defendant?s showing that preparing only a sample report took ?several weeks, over 250 hours of vendor time, and 750 hours of computer processing time? and where plaintiffs offered ?no adequate factual basis for their belief that the current production [was] deficient? in support of what amounted to a request for ?discovery on discovery?; court acknowledged, however, that ?there are circumstances where such collateral discovery is warranted?

Nature of Case: False and misleading statements in violation of securities laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

The Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257-JJB-RLB, 2014 WL 4373210 (M.D. La. Sep. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where parties? agreed protective order stated that parties would endeavor to agree on search terms to be utilized in the search for responsive ESI, and current discovery dispute centered solely on the reasonableness of the search terms chosen by each party and the willingness of the parties to negotiate reasonable search terms, court rejected defendant?s proposed list of 90 search terms in light of plaintiff?s showing that the broad search would result in undue burden and expense by generating an excess of irrelevant documents, and instead ordered plaintiff to search for responsive documents using plaintiff?s 28 proposed search terms and protocol which the court found reasonable and well-tailored to locate responsive documents; court faulted parties for their lack of diligence in completing discovery within the court?s deadlines, observing: ?In short, both sides chose to do nothing, waiting to see if the other side would blink first. In doing so, they have compromised the deadlines in the court?s scheduling order, the briefing on dispositive motions, and have essentially gambled with the parameters of ESI discovery.?

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., No. 2:09-1546, 2014 WL 555164 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on union’s failure to preserve evidence, noting that union appeared to have been diligent in trying to gather up relevant documents once litigation commenced, there was no way to determine when the missing records were destroyed, and union was autonomous organization and none of the existing plaintiffs shouldered any blame for the union’s negligence

Nature of Case: Class action regarding defendant’s obligation to restore certain retiree healthcare benefits

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail and other ESI

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Frazer/Exton Dev., L.P., 503 B.R. 620 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied debtors? motion to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement with debtors? largest creditor and plan of reorganization because — notwithstanding that creditor failed to search all potential sources of ESI and failed to produce responsive documents in what court described as ?incompetent and reckless discovery foul-up? that should not have occurred — debtors could not, as a matter of law, obtain the relief they sought under Rule 60 and it would therefore be futile for the court to reopen the record for the purpose of allowing the debtors to file a time-barred Rule 60 motion

Nature of Case: Debtors sought to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement and plan of reorganization

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Magnuson v. Newman, No. 10 Civ. 6211(JMF), 2013 WL 5380387 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court observed there was little question that defendants’ disclosures had not included documents that were once in their possession that would be relevant to the case, as they had failed to produce any emails between and among themselves and any drafts of contracts relating to the issues of the lawsuit, court declined to impose discovery sanctions because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing that defendants had an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time it was destroyed; court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ admitted failure to back up their computers or put a litigation hold in place constituted per se gross negligence, and stated that a party?s failure to adopt good preservation practices was one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought by a group of television production professionals and companies

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and documents

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection