Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 16

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

Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express Inc., No. CV 13-02092 BRO (PLAx), 2014 WL 12560879 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and possible evidence preclusion (TBD after recovery efforts were exhausted), where Defendant failed to preserve its employees? text messages, including highly relevant text messages, by failing to implement a litigation hold and where despite Defendant?s attempts to recover the deleted information, the court deemed it ?very unlikely? that such efforts would result in full production; court also reasoned that even if all missing documents were produced, Plaintiffs would still be prejudiced in light of less time to review the evidence and prepare for trial

Nature of Case: Class action employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages, ESI

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”

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

Ackerman v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-CV-42 (SNR/JSM), 2014 WL 258565 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Black Diamond Mining Co. v. Genser, No. 12-125-ART, 2014 WL 3611329 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court addressed motion for sanctions and found that accused spoliators had acted intentionally and/or negligently, but not in bad faith; court found that sanctions were ?unwarranted? for the negligent loss of certain email attachments because of defendant?s failure to ?access documents in an archive while gathering the original emails?- even despite finding that defendant acted with a ?culpable state of mind? – where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the attachments? relevance (court noted that defendant did not ?actively delete the attachments? but rather its agents ?forgot to take steps to preserve the documents before they were deleted from the archive?); for individual actors? negligent and intentional failures to preserve ESI and hard copy documents, the court found that the ?test of relevance [was] satisfied? and imposed a permissive adverse inference, but declined to order reimbursement of the Trustee?s fees or the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments, ESI, hard copy

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., No. 12-cv-11500, 2015 WL 1029540 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found an individual defendant had control over deleted emails in an account located on a Comcast server and that the deletion of the emails was not ?merely coincidental to the winding-down of the business operations? of Defendant but rather was intentional, ?to prevent the discovery of the evidence therein?; reasoning that Plaintiff was not prevent from proving its most crucial allegations, the court declined to impose ?case-terminating? sanctions, but did order monetary sanctions against the individual defendant who controlled the emails and that Defendants? would bear the cost of a forensic search of their computers; notably, the inspection would apply to all defendants? computers, despite the court?s finding that one individual defendant had no control over the deleted emails and could not be held responsible for the deletion where the court explained (in footnote) that the non-spoliating defendant?s email account (used by his clinic) was registered to the spoliating defendant and where the non-spoliating defendant testified that he had not conducted a proper search of his computers

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on third party (Cloud) server

Out of the Box Developers LLC v. Logicbit Corp., No. 10 CVS 8327, 2013 WL 3090303 (N.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2013 WL 1277878 (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s fourth and fifth motions for sanctions resulting from the delayed production of relevant ESI for reasons ranging from alleged computer glitches to prior counsel?s failure to turn over highly relevant emails?and current counsel?s failure to timely discovery that those emails had previously been withheld?the court acknowledged current counsel?s efforts to rectify prior discovery abuses (addressed in prior sanctions motions) but nonetheless found that severe sanctions were warranted, including that defendant?s non-equitable counterclaims be stricken, that defendant pay the reasonable costs associated with the filing of the fourth and fifth motions for sanctions, that defendant or its counsel bear the cost of re-depositions (which they had previously offered to do), and that defendant pay a portion of the costs for plaintiff?s experts to supplement their reports

Nature of Case: Claims arising from contract for providing worker?s compensation insurance and claims administration

Electronic Data Involved: Misc. ESI

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection