Tag:Backup Tapes

1
Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)
2
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)
3
In re Intel Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 2030967 (D. Del. July 7, 2009)
4
Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)
5
Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)
6
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle Bank Nat?l Ass?n, 2009 WL 2243854 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2009)
7
Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., 2009 WL 2868891 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009)
8
Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)
9
Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)
10
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants repeatedly represented they had searched for and produced all relevant and available emails and also represented that some documents had been deleted ?per agency practice? before notice of litigation, but where defendants later found backup tapes containing thousands of responsive emails following plaintiff?s filing of a motion for sanctions, court rejected the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) noting that ?defendants were unable to provide electronically stored information only because they had not searched all of the available files.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants

In re Intel Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 2030967 (D. Del. July 7, 2009)

Key Insight: Court adopted Special Master?s Report and Recommendation requiring plaintiffs to respond to questions regarding the scope of their efforts with regard to the restoration of backup tapes upon finding that such information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, ESI

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle Bank Nat?l Ass?n, 2009 WL 2243854 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff filed a motion to compel (or for sanctions) following its discovery that defendant failed to search a number of backup tapes and failed to maintain all tapes which may have contained responsive ESI, court denied the motion upon finding that burden of restoration of the tapes was ?disproportionate to the likely utility of doing so? and because LaSalle had a practice of printing and filing important emails; court also noted the parties? failure to adequately confer regarding the discovery of ESI

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., 2009 WL 2868891 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009)

Key Insight: Despite the ?clearly burdensome? process required to restore, review and produce the requested ESI, court ordered production of a specific category of ESI, where ?fairness demand[ed]? plaintiff have an opportunity to review? it, but ordered that if plaintiff continued to desire production of the remaining categories ?for which plaintiff ha[d] a lesser need, in light of all of the other discovery in this matter,? plaintiff must pay half the cost

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)

Key Insight: Where third-party presented evidence that responding to subpoena would require searching hundreds of locations, would require the restoration of back up tapes, and would take ?over two years to accomplish and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,? court modified subpoena to narrow scope of the request, but ordered production of relevant documents, ?even if they [were] not reasonably accessible?

Nature of Case: Allegations of wrongful termination in furtherance of political scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.