Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 20

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Davis v. Rouse, No. WDQ-08-cv-3106, 2012 WL 3059569 (D. Md. July 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant produced more than 61,000 pages of emails but, when faced with Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, could not explain how the search for ESI had been conducted (by a vendor) and subsequently produced only 11,411 pages of emails after being ordered to re-run the search, the court imposed sanctions of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff?s counsel to review the initial large production of emails containing many non-responsive documents and found counsel for plaintiff was also entitled to recover ?some proportional and reasonable? attorneys? fees and costs for litigating the underlying motion for sanctions which brought the overproduction to light

Nature of Case: Allegations of assault pursuant to 42 USC 1983

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2011 WL 10563364 (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For Defendant?s and counsel?s discovery violations, including delayed production of relevant information, wrongful certification that discovery was complete, producing a 500-page document 35 times, and failing to conduct adequate searches of responsive information, court evaluated the Enrenhaus factors and imposed monetary sanctions to be paid by both Defendant and its counsel; court?s analysis was particularly critical of counsel who the court concluded had ?abdicated its responsibility to exercise oversight of the discovery process? and who the court found to be subject to sanctions pursuant to both Rule 37 and 26

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

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection