Inspection – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?

Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

Global Technical Search, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 2008 WL 789929 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant certified that he had deleted any and all of plaintiff’s proprietary information from his computer and stipulated to plaintiff’s requested relief, court ordered that a mutually acceptable representative of plaintiff be allowed to examine defendant’s computer to confirm permanent deletion of proprietary information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Recruiting firm’s database; computer hard drive

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 5381864 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Despite their production?s compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, court ordered defendants to specifically identify documents responsive to particular requests where plaintiff could not ?easily locate the documents? responsive to those requests within the production; court ordered defendant to use search terms provided by plaintiffs, despite objections of burden and privilege, but ordered use of connector term ?and? rather than ?or? to return documents ?more responsive? to the requests; court declined to order forensic imaging of hard drive but ordered defendant?s expert to produce attorney?s eyes only report of examination of the hard drive to address specific concerns and to provide plaintiffs with a directory list for all defendant?s non-Altair computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drives

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant offered plaintiff access to the relevant computer for analysis but where defendant had not yet provided access and had failed to confirm production of all responsive documents from all relevant computers pursuant to court order, court ordered defendant to make computer available within 15 days so that plaintiff?s expert might ?ascertain for itself whether all responsive documents have been produced or?whether any relevant information on the hard drive or drives have been destroyed, erased, or wiped? and to serve verified supplemental responses to discovery indicating ?a diligent search of every computer [at issue]?

Nature of Case: Complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2008 WL 928332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ruled that defendant could recover attorney fees and costs relating to motion to compel and forensic inspection of plaintiff?s computer servers, court denied defendant?s subsequent request for $944,902 in attorneys? fees and instead awarded $105,000 as reasonable amount of attorneys? fees incurred; court further ordered plaintiff to pay neutral computer expert only for fees directly related to forensic inspection and not for those related to defendant’s advocacy in the action

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Computer servers

Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Despite court?s acknowledgment of the requested data?s relevance, plaintiff?s offer to provide a technical expert to perform the search, and plaintiff?s proffer of at least three alternative search protocols, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel a school district to search for specified terms in the databases of all its schools where court found that the proposed discovery imposed an excessive burden due to the district?s lack of technical resources and where plaintiff?s proposals failed to sufficiently lessen that burden

Nature of Case: Complaint alleges unreasonable seizure of high school student and use of excessive force resulting in permanent injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases at all school’s in district

John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Applying a five-factor balancing test and in light of significant confidentiality and federalism concerns present in the case, Sixth Circuit concluded that certain aspects of district court’s orders constituted a ?demonstrable abuse of discretion,? and granted, in part, defendants? petition for mandamus and set aside those provisions of the district court’s orders that required forensic imaging of state-owned and privately owned computers, including the provisions that required U.S. Marshal or his designee to assist plaintiffs’ computer expert in execution of orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: State-owned and privately owned computers

Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 2008 WL 2486030 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiffs were not required to produce for forensic inspection their ?desktop computers, cell phones, e-mail machines, laptop computers, mobile phones, ESI storage media, handheld computers and personal digital assistants,? but ordered plaintiffs determine which plaintiffs owned such devices and to produce a list of names and equipment to defendant within 20 days, and defendant would be allowed to re-file the discovery request with a showing of need; court further ruled that defendant need not produce pay and time records in an accessible electronic format but gave plaintiffs leave to re-file motion upon a showing that defendant had not supplied all available pay and time records

Nature of Case: FLSA claims, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, cell phones and ESI storage devices used by plaintiffs

Tag:Inspection