Key Insight: Additional search terms leading to 79% of all of a company’s emails is not proportional
Electronic Data Involved: Financial records
Keywords: search terms, proportional, supplemental request
Van v. Language Line Servs. (United States District Court Northern District of California, 2016)
Key Insight: E-mail request must be proportional to the evidentiary needs of the case.
Nature of Case: Request for Production
Electronic Data Involved: e-mail
Keywords: DDJR, “tactical” gamesmanship, Van’s earing statements, Allison,
Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)
Key Insight: if the balance of the discovery requests outweighed their benefit
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud , negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and unfair competition.
Electronic Data Involved: responses of three interrogatories in light of changes to rule 26
Keywords: proportionality, motion to compel, balance of request, benefit of requested discovery
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)
Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested
Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA
Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment
Bazzi v. YP Advertising & Publishing, LLC (Eastern District of Michigan, 2016)
Key Insight: forensic imaging of USB drive of handwritten notes and reopening of deposition for questioning regarding the notes
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: handwritten notes from plantiff
Keywords: delaying tactics, reopening deposition, disclosure of evidence at deposition, relevancy
In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation (Eastern district of Louisiana MDL, 2016)
Key Insight: personnel files are not maintained by the custodian, they are maintained by HR and contain personal information and are not discoverable
Nature of Case: products liability
Electronic Data Involved: employee personnel files of people that plaintiffs want to depose
Keywords: discoverability, relevancy, personnel files
Washburn v. Lavoie, 437 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
Key Insight: Magistrate did not err in refusing to order defendants to produce all emails that mentioned plaintiff or plaintiff’s lawsuit, where magistrate did order defendants to produce the emails for in camera inspection and magistrate’s personal review showed that nearly half were devoid of anything bearing upon the litigation and the other half dealt with irrelevant issues such as the costs of litigation, retention of counsel and the need to answer interrogatories
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1120632 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2006)
Key Insight: Court found that the computerized claim file was clearly relevant, irrespective of whether plaintiffs intended to use the documents or not in the litigation, and ordered plaintiffs to produce the complete claim file, including hard copies and electronic documents, to the extent such documents were not privileged or prepared for the sole purpose of “probable” or “imminent” litigation
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim file
Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 799 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
Key Insight: Finding that individual had stated cognizable defamation claim against anonymous author of offending email, court denied email author?s application to vacate order requiring internet service provider to disclose email account information
Nature of Case: Defamation claim based on offending email message
Electronic Data Involved: Email author identity
BG Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1309048 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005)
Key Insight: Request for production of “computer hard drive” was overly broad and responding party need not produce entire hard drive; however, to the extent that hard drive contained non-privileged items that were responsive to other requests as to which responding party’s objections were not sustained, such items should be produced
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and unauthorized settlement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive