Local Rule – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Del Gallo v. City of New York, 997 N.Y.S.2d 98 (Table) (N.Y. Sup. Ct.2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing request for discovery of Plaintiff?s social media contents, specifically LinkedIn, court indicated that ?[t]o warrant such discovery, ?defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s [social media] account — that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff?s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims?? and, although it acknowledged that Defendants could obtain information pertinent to Plaintiff?s communications with recruiters related to job offers and related inquiries, indicated that Defendants had not shown that they were entitled to Plaintiff?s communications with former colleagues about her condition or to the other materials on LinkedIn

Nature of Case: Wrongful death and personal injuries resulting from falling tree limb

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media Contents (e.g., LinkedIn)

Culp v. Alabama, CR-13-1039, 2014 WL 6608543 (Ala. Crim. App Nov.21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In his appeal of a domestic violence conviction, Culp claimed that emails between himself and the victim were improperly admitted into evidence and were never properly authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4), Ala. R. Evid.. Alabama?s Rule 901(b)(4), which is identical to the federal version, provides that evidence can be authenticated by ?[d]istinctive characteristics and the like,? including ?[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.? The court ruled that the emails were properly authenticated because each email contained Culp?s photograph, a screen name that he used, and many of the emails concluded with Culp?s initials. Additionally, the emails contained drug references that were uniquely used by Culp and the victim.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Email

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, No. 12SA287, 2013 WL 1557840 (Colo. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone

EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 295 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to establish a litigation hold and resulting loss of relevant data through routine purge was inexcusable and presented exceptional circumstances that removed such conduct from the protections provided by Rule 37(c); as sanction, court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment which turned in part on skill login data, and would give permissive adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed evidence at trial

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Skill login data

Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., No. 8:11-cv-00775-T-24 TBM, 2013 WL 5656064 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to quash subpoena that sought documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits from third-party that related to defendant and that were produced by defendant in third-party’s now-settled litigation with defendant because defendant failed to comply with local rule requiring submission of a joint written statement of the matters at issue in the discovery dispute; court further noted there was nothing in the record that the target of the subpoena objected to producing the requested documents, and defendant cited no local or procedural rule which prohibited the plaintiff from subpoenaing the information from the third-party before or after plaintiff requested it from defendant

Nature of Case: Motion to quash subpoena issued by plaintiff in case pending in the Middle District of Florida, listing Nashville, Tenn. as the place of production

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits produced by defendant in other, now-settled litigation

Hull v. WTI, Inc.,—S.E.2d—, 2013 WL 2996191 (Ga. Ct. App. June 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants produced 156,000 documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business but where the documents were insufficiently organized and only the documents? indexes and not the documents themselves were text searchable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the production was not consistent with Defendants? discovery obligations; appellate court noted that trial court did not hold that parties are prohibited from producing documents as kept in the ordinary course of business but rather than in this instance, ?under these circumstances,? the production was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, trade secret misappropriations, and “other business tort claims” and counterclaims

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy and miscellaneous ESI (e.g., email)

Tag:Local Rule