Motion to Compel – Page 106 – Electronic Discovery Law

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

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

Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding each email in string a ?separate communication for which a privilege may or may not be applicable? court rejected defendants? argument of extreme burden and ordered production of ?proper privilege log? identifying required information for each message; court ordered defendants to identify author, recipient, or copyee of redacted documents already in plaintiffs possession finding it ?unreasonable? to require of plaintiffs because defendants were obligated to justify privilege claim

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel additional electronic searching as to certain custodians where defendant established their potential relevance and where plaintiff failed to establish additional search would be unduly burdensome or that custodians had no relevance to litigation; court noted that plaintiff?s assertions that documents referencing custodians at issue were drafted before the popularization of email does not excuse obligation to search for potentially relevant materials even where the search may be ?fruitless?

Nature of Case: Breach of reinsurance contracts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email of particular custodians

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 111219 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff credibly argued that deposition testimony identified responsive but unproduced documents, court ordered defendant to certify that it had thoroughly searched for all responsive documents and to identify any documents or sets of documents that had been deleted, erased, or otherwise destroyed; although court would not require defendant to restore backup media at this juncture, it ordered defendant to identify what otherwise responsive but not readily accessible documents might be retained in archive form, on backup tapes/discs, or on any other backup media; court further ordered defendant to fully identify computers used by decision makers in plaintiff’s termination

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 WL 2020362 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied as overly-broad and intrusive defendant’s request that its forensic expert be permitted to make complete forensic copy of plaintiff’s File Server and FTP server; court instead would allow forensic expert to make forensic copy of relevant folders on plaintiff’s FTP server

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel