Motion to Compel – Page 102 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant argued it produce in hard copy format (Excel spreadsheets) all the information that defense expert relied on in creating his regression models, court ordered defendant to produce raw data in electronic format but denied plaintiff?s request to depose defense expert or persons responsible for compiling the information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of raw, unfiltered data from defendant’s human resource database which defense expert used to conduct regression analysis

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Dean v. New Werner Holding Co., Inc., 2008 WL 2560707 (D. Kan. June 26, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant had nearly six months to review and accumulate responsive ESI, and represented to court that it intended to produce responsive ESI but provided no date for such production, court ordered defendant to produce ESI within 30 days of court?s order

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery issues, court set protocol for production of certain documents by non-party: (1) plaintiffs to specify documents sought in native format with metadata; (2) within 10 days, non-party to file with court an estimate of the cost of production of all documents; (3) within 10 days, plaintiffs to pay into court?s registry total sum of non-party?s estimate, or limit request to reduce estimated costs; (4) within 21 days, non-party to produce those documents or electronic files to plaintiffs in their original format with metadata; (5) within 10 days, non-party to file bill of actual costs incurred; (6) court to review costs and may appoint expert to help court determine reasonableness; (7) court to enter order directing clerk to pay non-party reasonable sum

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

Displaylink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 2915390 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requested source code was relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and stipulated protective order was in place which addressed confidentiality concerns, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of source code

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court overruled plaintiff?s objections to magistrate judge?s order denying sanctions and clarifying that defendant was not required to produce ESI in ?native format? or to produce metadata, where limited evidentiary value of producing ?native format? documents with accompanying metadata was outweighed by overly burdensome task of generating such documents

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: APEX files, Lotus Notes email files, and Microsoft Office spreadsheet files

Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) was disjunctive and allowed a party to provide either a copy or description of documents, court found that plaintiff had complied with rule by providing CD containing documents to defendants (regardless of whether document descriptions contained in disclosure statement were insufficient or whether CD was ?searchable?), but directed plaintiff to file supplemental disclosure statement in which he affirmatively states that documents contained on CD were documents he may use to support his claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing documents listed in plaintiff?s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure statement (consisting of more than 11,000 pages)

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Tag:Motion to Compel