Tag: Local Rule

1
In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2656, Misc. No. 15-1404 (CKK) (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2018)
2
Bailey v. Alpha Techs., Inc., No. C16-0727-JCC, 2017 WL 2378921 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2017)
3
Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2016 WL 6522807 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)
4
Carlson v. Jarousek, No. 2-15-1248, 20167243557 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 21, 2016)
5
LBI, Inc. v. Sparks, No. KNLCV126018984S, 2015 WL 6144112 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2015)
6
In re State Farm Lloyds, 13?14?00616?CV, 2015 WL 6520998 (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2015)
7
Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7158212 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015)
8
Banks v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 15-cv-2602-JAR-TJJ, 2015 WL 7451174 (D. Kan. Nov. 23, 2015)
9
Butler v. State of Texas, —S.W.3d—, 2015 WL 1816933 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 22, 2015)
10
HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, NO. A754/2014, 2015 WL 2403099 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2015)

In Re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2656, Misc. No. 15-1404 (CKK) (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2018)

Key Insight: Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, unforeseen or unanticipated matters.

Nature of Case: Unlawful restraint of trade class action

Electronic Data Involved: 3.5 million predominantly non-responsive documents produced by defendant, predictive coding.

View Case Opinion

Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2016 WL 6522807 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)

Key Insight: The parties in this case agreed to produce ESI ?in accordance with the Southern District?s Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.? Defendant sought production of all documents that ??hit? on the parties? agreed-upon search terms without further relevance review,? arguing that the terms were narrowly tailored and that any resulting hits were ?presumptively relevant and responsive.? Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s interpretation of the order was contrary to law and conflicted with the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), among other things. Citing a declaration from Plaintiff?s CEO that the search hits, which for some terms numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands, contained a substantial number of irrelevant documents, the court agreed that ?culling for relevance [was] warranted.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search hits)

Carlson v. Jarousek, No. 2-15-1248, 20167243557 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 21, 2016)

Key Insight: In personal injury case, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering forensic imaging of ALL of Plaintiff?s devices, including his work computer which was owned by his employer, where, among other things, the appellate court determined that such a request ran ?counter to the traditional protocol of discovery, in which one party requests specific information and the other party searches its own files (and computers) to identify and produce responsive information?; where the computer was not directly involved in the cause of action; where there was no evidence of prior discovery violations; and where ?careful consideration of relevance and proportionality reveal[ed] that forensic imaging was not justified in this case? including because there were ?ample? alternative avenues for discovery (e.g, requests for admission, depositions) and because much of the information sought fell within the categories of ESI identified in Illinois to be presumptively not discoverable; the court also addressed Plaintiff?s privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Personal injury (appeal)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic imaging of computers (including work computer)

LBI, Inc. v. Sparks, No. KNLCV126018984S, 2015 WL 6144112 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2015)

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought to avoid production or allocate costs related to the production of allegedly inaccessible information based on the alleged cost and burdens related to processing and review but acknowledged that some of the ?raw data associated with the documents? was accessible, the court concluded that the affidavit from an attorney for the defendant?s counsel who had not ?attested to having a technical understanding of, or background in, electronically stored data? was not by itself ?enough evidence? to demonstrate that the at-issue ESI was not reasonably accessible and ordered defendant to submit additional evidence re: whether the information was stored in a ?readily usable format?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with a business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Banks v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 15-cv-2602-JAR-TJJ, 2015 WL 7451174 (D. Kan. Nov. 23, 2015)

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, court overruled Defendant?s objection to producing ESI in native format with metadata where Defendant failed to indicate in its objection the form of production it intended to use instead and did not support its objection by explaining why it could not or should not be required to produce as requested and, in fact, admitted that it had previously produced material in native format; court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to compel responses outlining Defendant?s search efforts (sometimes called “discovery on discovery”) where Plaintiff?s counsel failed to confer with Defense counsel prior to bringing the motion, as is required by the District of Kansas? ESI Guidelines

Nature of Case: Title VII: racial discrimination, retaliatory conduct

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Butler v. State of Texas, —S.W.3d—, 2015 WL 1816933 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 22, 2015)

Key Insight: Highest criminal court in Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals that had overturned defendant?s conviction upon concluding that the trial court ?had acted within its discretion? in concluding that the state met its threshold burden of authentication sufficient to admit defendant?s text messages to the victim where authentication can be satisfied by direct or circumstantial evidence and where the victim testified that she knew the messages were from defendant because: he had called from that number in the past, ?the context of the text messages convinced her that the messages were from him,? and ?he actually called her from that same phone number during the course of that very text message exchange?

Nature of Case: Criminal: Kidnapping, assault and related crimes

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages from Defendant to the victim

HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, NO. A754/2014, 2015 WL 2403099 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2015)

Key Insight: For one defendant?s repeated use of a cleaning software (?Disk Utility? and its ?Secure Erase Free Space? function) to delete files and loss of a relevant hard drive without an adequate explanation and for another defendant?s loss of relevant ESI, including her intentional deletion of information from the desktop registry and her disposal of her cell phone (which she notably was unaware had been automatically backed up each time it was connected to her computer), ongoing deletion of text messages (on her new phone), and misrepresentations about when the old phone was discarded, the court found that a mandatory adverse inference was warranted and rejected Defendants? argument that the court should decline to employ the adverse inference at the preliminary injunction state, reasoning that the objective of promoting fairness was best served by ?employing an adverse inference at all relevant states of the litigation?; court also ordered defendants to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys fees without seeking reimbursement from their new employer and indicated its intention to forward its decision to the NY Bar in light of one defendant?s status as an attorney

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of “post-employment covenants”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive, text messages (iphone)

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.