Inspection – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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

E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2013 WL 753480 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Following up on its November 2012 opinion (2012 WL 5430974), the court adopted the EEOC?s proposed search terms (with certain additions proposed by Defendant) and amended its November order to hold that the EEOC would bear the initial costs of the Special Master appointed for the purpose of conducting the relevant searches of Plaintiffs? email, social networks, and cell phones and could seek reimbursement from the Defendant by motion and argument at an appropriate time (court had initially ordered that the parties would bear the cost equally

Nature of Case: Sexual Harassment, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Social media, text messages, email

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, Nos. 2:12-cv-510, 2:12-cv-929, 2013 WL 1282384 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection and imaging of certain of defendant?s computers/servers/devices in case involving accusations of misappropriation of confidential information by plaintiff?s former employees for the benefit of defendant but also granted defendant a protective order limiting disclosure for ?attorneys? eyes only?

Nature of Case: Missapropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, No. 12SA287, 2013 WL 1557840 (Colo. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone

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)

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, No. 4:12-CV-1253 CAS, 2013 WL 4028275 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted cross-claim plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-claim defendant to produce computer and cell phone used by decedent by shipping those devices from Jonesboro, Arkansas to St. Louis, Missouri (at cross-claim plaintiff’s expense) for forensic examination because cross-claim defendant’s production of copies of cell phone text messages and a non-forensic copy of the computer hard drive were insufficient to respond to plaintiff’s request for production of the devices themselves, since the copies did not allow for forensic examination of the devices, and because the slight inconvenience to cross-claim defendant in not having access to the cell phone and computer for a period of time was outweighed by the significant additional expense cross-claim plaintiff would incur if she were required to examine the devices in Jonesboro

Nature of Case: Probate matter

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and cell phone used by decedent

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man, Inc., N. 12-2159-JTM, 2013 WL 1001851 (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court was satisfied that defendants were aware of their legal duty to preserve evidence and noted that defendants had stated they had a diligent electronic record-keeping practice to track the company’s sales, purchases and inventory, and that the company would consent to an on-site physical inspection of its inventory; court was not persuaded that preservation order was appropriate or that it would serve any useful purpose in light of the parties’ existing legal obligations to preserve relevant evidence

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unlawful business practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sprint phones, ESI

Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, No. 10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2012 WL 777500 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant?s responses to discovery were incomplete, court ordered defendant to ?proceed with the forensic search of their computer systems using protocols agreed upon by the parties? but declined to compel defendant to bear the cost of the examination until final costs were known; defendant was also ordered to institute a litigation hold where defendant?s deposition testimony established that none had previously been issued

Nature of Case: Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 (CBA), 2012 WL 3705001 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, seeking data related to the number of times and when defendant logged onto plaintiff?s accounting system, defendant paid for an expert to restore damaged media but found no responsive data thereon and where plaintiff thereafter sought access to the damaged media to conduct its own search, the court indicated it would not allow a fishing expedition, but that if plaintiff wanted to bear the costs of duplicating defendant?s restoration and search efforts, it could retain a neutral third-party expert to do so, limited to a search of specifically identified folders; as to an inoperable drive that the parties previously agreed would be considered inaccessible, court would allow plaintiff to pay for neutral third party?s examination to perform a limited review; court declined to compel affidavit from defendant indicating specific steps to locate and preserve relevant data

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive and copies of same

Tucker v. Amer. Int?l Group, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-1499 (CSH), 2012 WL 902930 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection of third party?s electronic records where the subpoenas seeking access was overly broad, where the existence of additional responsive information was speculative, where the information sought was cumulative of information obtained elsewhere, and where conducting the requested search would result in a significant burden to a non-party

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages from former employer’s insurers

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Inspection