Tag:Keyword Search

1
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)
2
Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)
3
Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)
4
Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)
5
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)
6
Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Pitkin, 2008 WL 4150225 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2008) (Unpublished)
7
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)
8
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)
9
Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)
10
Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Pitkin, 2008 WL 4150225 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2008) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where Commissioner was legally authorized to conduct an investigation, subpoena sought documents and ESI that were reasonably relevant to investigation, and Commissioner had valid concerns regarding completeness of plaintiff?s prior productions, court found that investigative subpoena was issued for a proper purpose and denied plaintiff?s motion to quash; court further rejected plaintiff?s claim that subpoena was unduly burdensome, noting that plaintiff had failed to present any documentary evidence of its cost estimates and that plaintiff must bear production costs like any other cost of doing business

Nature of Case: Securities investigation conducted by Connecticut Commissioner of Banking

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.