Keyword Search – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff accused defendant of a ?document dump? in the wake of its production of 4,004,183 pages of documents and where defendants argued that the high volume was a result of plaintiff?s overbroad discovery requests, the court reasoned that the issue could have been avoided had counsel conferred to refine search terms and ordered the parties to confer in good faith to reach agreement regarding reducing the volume of discovery and that absent agreement, a special master would be appointed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged concealment of overvaluing real estate investments

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Jutai 661 Equipamentos Electronicos, LTDA, 2009 WL 800143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff was obligated to produce responsive ESI but was ?not required to conduct an unduly burdensome comprehensive search of its electronic archives,? court ordered parties to meet and confer ?for the purpose of establishing reasonable limitations on the scope of [Plaintiffs?] obligation to produce responsive electronically-stored information, which may include restricting the search to certain? employees and agreeing upon a list of search terms?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Andrew Corp. v. Cassinelli, 2009 WL 736669 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered discovery into extent of defendant?s compliance with Settlement Agreement upon plaintiff?s showing that confidential information remained on defendant?s computer system and where defendant?s court ordered search for additional information included retention of discovery firm to search seven computers, an email server, and a scratch drive using 26 terms based on the content of the previously discovered confidential information, court found the search ?deficient? and that defendant had failed to confirm that all information subject to the Settlement Agreement was deleted and appointed a Special Master, at defendant?s expense, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s attorneys fees for its Motion to Enforce and Supplement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

In re Direct Sw., Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 2009 WL 2461716 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed about whether defendants were required to search for ESI using plaintiffs? search terms or using their own, court denied motion for reconsideration and upheld prior order requiring defendants to ?certify that they conducted a complete search using the terms found on plaintiff?s search term list? despite defendants? claims that using such terms would ?produce many false hits and require them to incur costs of $100,000 to produce the ESI?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Kandel v. Brother Int?l Corp., 2009 WL 5454888 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants presented evidence that 110 privileged documents were produced despite extensive preventative measures, including key word searching and manual review, and where defense counsel took immediate action to identify all privileged materials that had been produced and to request plaintiff return, sequester, or destroy the documents pursuant to the parties? clawback agreement, court found that ?defendants ha[d] shown their production?was inadvertent within the meaning of?the protective order? and denied plaintiff?s motion for an order declaring 28 documents produced by defendants to be not privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

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:Keyword Search