Tag: Inspection

1
Bratcher v. Navient Sols., Inc., 249 F.Supp.3d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2017)
2
Mid. Am. Sols. LLC v. Vantiv, Inc., No. 1:16-mc-2, 2016 WL 1611381 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2016)
3
Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)
4
Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)
5
A.M.castle & Co. v. Byrne, No. H-13-2960, 2015 WL 4756928 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2015)
6
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., No. 12-cv-11500, 2015 WL 1029540 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014)
7
Invivo Therapeutics Corp. v. PixarBio Corp., No. 14-CV_7481-F, 2014 WL 7444828 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2014)
8
Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)
9
Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)
10
Thompson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:09-CV-905 JCM (NJK), 2013 WL 164245 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2013)

Bratcher v. Navient Sols., Inc., 249 F.Supp.3d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to examine plaintiff?s smartphone itself for the purpose of obtaining a log of blocked calls arguing that ?plaintiff is not entitled to recovery for any blocked calls,? the court noted that defendant had failed to provide legal basis for this position and that ?[T]here is no routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system. … absent a factual finding of some non-compliance with [the] discovery rules, direct access is unwarranted.? The court further noted that defendant made no effort to comply with the requirement for a proposal for the protection of privacy rights, the protection of privileged information, and the separation of irrelevant information during inspection. On this basis, the court found direct access to the cell phone unwarranted and denied defendant?s motion to compel.

Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone Call Block Records

Mid. Am. Sols. LLC v. Vantiv, Inc., No. 1:16-mc-2, 2016 WL 1611381 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2016)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of at-issue data in ?condensed format? where Plaintiff originally requested and was provided with the data in it its ?original and unaltered format? and where the requested re-production was not proportional to the needs of the case because relevant evidence had already been provided; Court denied request for inspection to test accuracy of data produced where Plaintiff had not yet taken full advantage of the data in hand (by failing to take advantage of certain Excel functions) and thus had no basis for questioning the accuracy, thus rendering an inspection out of proportion to the needs of the case

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Champion Foodservice, LLC v. Vista Food Exchange, No. 1:13-cv-1195, 2016 WL 6638614 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2016)

Key Insight: Where the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant?s request for forensic inspection be granted, to be undertaken by a neutral third party, in light of the fact that the information sought ?seem[ed] germane? and because despite ?hesitancy to allow on site inspections ? the level of distrust among the parties ? plead[ed] for such intervention,? the District Court overruled Defendant?s objections, noting that through their distrust and lack of cooperation ?[t]he parties and counsel themselves have created an atmosphere that warrants extraordinary circumstances and establishes good cause for an on-site inspection of Champion?s electronically stored information? and set forth a process by which the inspection would take place, including that the costs would be shifted to the requesting party ?given the nature of the accessibility of the [ESI] sought? (i.e., the information sought included backup and deleted material)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of ESI, including backup and deleted material

Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to organize and label its document production ?so that it corresponds to the categories in the request? because the discovery documents were immediately available for inspection at plaintiff counsel?s office in electronic format already organized, identifiable, and searchable by claim number; defendants needing only to execute claims number searches to identify documents. Thus, the court concluded that unless and until an inspection is undertaken and shown to be unduly burdensome, the plaintiff?s offer to permit inspection of database comports with ?both the letter and spirit of rule 34.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

A.M.castle & Co. v. Byrne, No. H-13-2960, 2015 WL 4756928 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2015)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought ?physical access? to Defendant?s electronic devices based on the belief that Plaintiff failed to perform a thorough search, the court overruled objections to denial of the motion where Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant was in possession of any of Plaintiff?s company documents and where Defendant responded adequately to discovery, including hiring an outside party to perform forensic examination of the computers and utilizing hundreds of search terms proposed by the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of employee confidentiality agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Invivo Therapeutics Corp. v. PixarBio Corp., No. 14-CV_7481-F, 2014 WL 7444828 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2014)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff suspected that Defendant was in possession of its confidential and proprietary information but where the ex-employee accused of sharing that information was ?incommunicado, and may well have left the jurisdiction,? court addressed Plaintiff?s request for forensic analysis of ALL of Defendant?s devices to determine the presence of the at-issue information and, ?in an effort to find a reasonable middle ground that serve[d] both parties interests,? ordered Plaintiff to identify the employee of Defendant most likely to have received the information and that all devices of that individual be searched; depending on outcome of search, court indicated that a search of ALL of Defendant?s devices was possible

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete, potential possession of confidential / proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops (contents)

Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for appointment of a neutral discovery expert and instead directed parties to meet and confer in person to create a plan to fully resolve their discovery dispute; court issued various directives and deadlines and recommended that plaintiffs send at least one paralegal or other individual with knowledge of or the capability to understand defendants? electronic and paper filing systems, to work with an appointed representative from defendants? side to search through defendants? electronic databases, and that defendants should appoint someone who could fully explain what is in the databases and assist in the search process

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic databases

Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s iphone where there was no dispute that the at-issue phone was not the phone that received the at-issue text message and where Plaintiff?s expert indicated that the relevant iphone had been backed up on plaintiff?s personal computer; court denied motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s personal computer where Defendant failed to demonstrate that the information sought was not reasonably accessible through other sources (e.g., the co-defendant that allegedly sent the at-issue text message), where plaintiff had offered to search for whatever information defendant sought, where plaintiff had already provided considerable data, and where Defendant?s request was essentially a fishing expedition; court reasoned that ?absent a showing of misconduct? raising questions regarding the completeness of Plaintiff?s expert?s search, no inspection by Defendant was warranted and ordered the parties to cooperate to create a protocol for plaintiff?s expert to use

Electronic Data Involved: iphone, contents of personal computer, text-message

Thompson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:09-CV-905 JCM (NJK), 2013 WL 164245 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2013)

Key Insight: District court adopted in its entirety the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Plaintiff?s amended complaint be dismissed and that her answer to defendants? counterclaims be stricken as a sanction for willful and bad faith spoliation where Plaintiff gave her relevant computers to her brother who then took them to Indonesia where he lived and where this spoliation resulted in severe prejudice to defendants; the opinion also upheld a prior order of the magistrate imposing sanctions in the form of findings detrimental to the plaintiff for ?ongoing and repetitive violations of discovery obligations?; as to both the recommendation adopted and the order upheld, the court granted defendant?s request for attorneys fees

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of restrictive covenant with prior employer

Electronic Data Involved: Two computers

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