Inspection – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, No. 09-00228-KD-N, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider its prior order directing plaintiff to produce certain hard drives and other data storage devices for forensic inspection where plaintiff failed to establish that such production was prohibited by Indian law and where plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the court?s prior determination that plaintiff?s behavior ?cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document produced? by plaintiff such that actual production of the devices was warranted

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, data storage devices

Habtegiorgis v. OIC of Washington, 2010 WL 2232142 (E.D. Wash. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff?s requests ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce certain ESI and to allow plaintiffs to search defendant?s server and network using the terms of plaintiff?s choosing and ordered that defendant provide information regarding the creation of backup disks and other evidence; court granted plaintiff?s motion for the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff?s affirmative claims dismissed, for plaintiff to bear all costs reasonably incurred in connection with defendant?s efforts to obtain discovery of plaintiff?s emails, and that the jury be provided an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff engaged in egregious discovery violations, including incomplete productions, installation and use of software intended to delete relevant emails from his computer, and misrepresentations to the court, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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

Dec 01 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

U.S. v. Cameron, 2009 WL 4544928 (D. Me. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where following an order to produce relevant laptops for defendant?s expert to examine the government represented its lack of custody of such laptops, save one, and that the laptop in its possession did not contain relevant evidence but did contain materials statutorily prohibited from dissemination, court amended order to explicitly relieve the Government of the obligation to produce materials not in its possession or to produce the laptop containing materials restricted from dissemination by statute; court?s opinion explicitly affirmed defendant?s right to question the Government regarding its failure to preserve and to bring any newly discovered evidence to the court?s attention

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer, despite plaintiff?s conflicting statements regarding the existence of a contract in 2005 and defendant?s resulting belief that plaintiff created the contract on her computer years later, where court determined the inspection would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiff carried the burden to prove the contract existed in 2005, not defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants could not produce a requested email because of damage to author?s and recipient?s computers but where defendants undertook significant effort to search for the email, including a search by the county?s Information Technology Director and inquiry to the County?s email provider about the email?s availability, and where defendant offered to make the author?s computer available for inspection at plaintiff?s expense, court declined plaintiff?s request to ?shift the cost of an independent computer expert? to defendants and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the email

Electronic Data Involved: Email

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Inspection