Motion to Compel – Page 108 – Electronic Discovery Law

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

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

S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Relion v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2008 WL 5122828 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff ?did not pursue all reasonable means of preserving privilege? court found that attorney client privilege was waived when plaintiff unintentionally produced two privileged emails in hard copy despite conducting a privilege review and because plaintiffs failed to discover the production until revealed by defendants despite having both paper and electronic, text-searchable copies of the documents produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant offered to produce a witness to authenticate a ?manageable number of documents? that plaintiffs would ?actually use at trial?, court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel production of a witness knowledgeable enough to authenticate thousands of documents and more than 580 CD-Rom discs of electronic files and source code and concluded that plaintiffs? motion was ?unreasonable and not supported by either the rules or the law?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 5262707 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced materials relied on by its expert on DVD in .sav format but defendants alleged it was inaccessible, court held that .sav format was a ?reasonably accessible format? and declined to compel re-production; court?s reasoning included consideration that .sav was format in which expert originally considered the information and evidence that .sav files could be opened by standard ?statistical computer packages?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “.sav” data

Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted

Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered Swiss defendants to produce all documents relating to their contacts with the United States, including email, and further ordered that such email and any attachments be produced in native format as specified in the request for production

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion to Compel