Inspection – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

Loius Vuitton Malletier, S.A., v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 1312898 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s initial investigation into publicly posted Internet content evidencing offers for counterfeit products revealed that several previously identified addresses belonged to the same individual and where plaintiff identified additional potentially infringing sites, court granted plaintiff?s motion to modify the court ordered inspection protocol to allow investigation beyond the 67 websites previously identified; court rejected defendants? argument that modification should be denied as burdensome where plaintiff was to bear the cost of the searching and rejected defendants privacy concerns in light of expert?s articulated methodology for pinpointing only potentially relevant material

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website Content

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI

Bianco v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2008 WL 4661241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of defendant?s general counsel?s laptop for imaging despite testimony that the laptop had been used to create some of the documents at issue where there was no evidence of discovery misconduct, where defendant searched extensively for and produced documents responsive to plaintiff?s requests, and where the ?intrusive search? would likely lead to the disclosure of privileged and confidential information ; court noted that Rule 34 does not create ?a routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, emails

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

Cantrell v. Cameron, 195 P.2d 659 (Colo. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding the court abused its discretion when it ordered production of a laptop for inspection but declined to incorporate restrictions or narrow scope of inspection and denied defendant?s motion for a protective order despite confidentiality concerns including attorney-client privilege and proprietary business information, appellate court vacated order and directed lower court to issue protective order limiting scope of inspection; court noted that while personal computers do implicate confidentiality issues requiring ?serious consideration of a person?s privacy interest,? ?a personal computer?s contents are not confidential by nature?

Nature of Case: Traffic accident resulting in personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Tag:Inspection