Inspection – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

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

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2008 WL 341310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Concluding that ESI sought from plaintiff’s computers directly related to issues in dispute and that the computers likely contained certain relevant evidence that was not contained on CD-ROMs or email attachments previously produced by plaintiff, court granted defendants? motion for an extension of the date by which to designate experts to a date after their inspection of plaintiff’s computers; court extended various discovery deadlines and ordered parties to confer to formulate a procedure reasonably calculated to afford the moving defendants the discovery to which they were entitled, while at the same time protecting plaintiff?s privileged information

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims under Ohio consumer protection laws based upon emails received from defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Second Circuit found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to examine in their entirety numerous computer hard drives belonging to Ogilvy and American Express employees and granting the request only to the extent it involved electronic records pertinent to disputed dates of creation of two documents, since plaintiff failed to show any error in district court’s determination that ?such wholesale rummaging? through American Express’s electronic records was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement and misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of employees of American Express and Ogilvy who worked on a particular ad campaign

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

Tag:Inspection