Keyword Search – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

City of Sterling Heights Gen. Emps.? Ret. Sys. V. Prudential Fin., Inc., No. 12-05275(MCA)(LDW), 2015 WL 5055241 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Citing its broad discretion to manage discovery and the limitations posed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel Defendant to identify additional custodians and utilize additional search terms and ordered that Plaintiffs would be allowed to choose up to 10 additional custodians and that Defendant must apply the four disputed search terms proposed by Plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Securities Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

H.M. Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12cv28840-BAS-MDD, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For multiple discovery violations by Defendant and counsel, including improper certification of discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(g), failure to issue a litigation hold or appropriately supervise discovery, and intentional deletion of responsive materials and delayed production, the court imposed multiple discovery sanctions, including attorneys? fees and costs, issue sanctions, and an adverse inference; notably, the court indicated sanctions would have been imposed under New Rule 37(e), because the court found that the at-issue ESI was lost with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the information?s use in the litigation; Update: Compensatory sanctions vacated by District Court upon determination that parties? settlement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions (—F.Supp.3d—, 2016 WL 1267385 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016))

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, trade libel, unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7158212 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Defendant to search for documents from non-U.S. points of sale where the court found such documents would be of ?marginal relevance at best? and that the burden and expense of production outweighed the benefit, noting that such production would ?vastly expand? an already voluminous production, would entail additional translation costs, and would ?potentially require the involvement of additional entities or foreign law??; court also declined to compel Defendant to conduct searches of Account Representatives for 170 different airlines where Plaintiff failed to establish that the expanded search would reveal additional relevant information and noting that the productions of third party air carriers had not revealed any ?glaring deficiencies? in Defendant?s production

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

L-3 Commcn?s Corp. v. Sparton Corp., 313 F.R.D. 661 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed topic of key word searching and sustained in part and overruled in part Defendant?s objections to the Magistrate Judge?s order to run all searches proposed by the Plaintiff where certain terms were vague or duplicative; court laid out framework for resolving disputes regarding search terms deemed overly burdensome, including a requirement that the parties confer in good faith before coming to the court

Nature of Case: Claims alleging defect in m

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Network Cargo Sys. U.S.A., Inc. v. Pappas, No. 13 C 9171, 2014 WL 1856773 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where e-discovery consultant jointly retained by parties reported that three previously undisclosed flash drives had been connected to former employee’s personal computers during the relevant time period, court agreed with plaintiff that consultant should be allowed to image and review the three flash drives but ruled that costs of such review would be borne by plaintiff given the likely limited usefulness of the search

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drives and other electronic devices used by former employee

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

Tag:Keyword Search