Motion to Compel – Page 114 – Electronic Discovery Law

Children’s Legal Servs. P.L.L.C v. Kresch, 2007 WL 4098203 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel answers to multi-part interrogatory seeking each email address, mobile phone number, internet username, and instant messaging username used by any employee, associate, partner, paralegal, shareholder or other person who worked with defendant and was involved in the provision, referral or advertisement of legal services connected to the disputed service mark or any permutation thereof, finding it unduly broad, burdensome and not limited to the discovery of relevant matters

Nature of Case: Service mark infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses and user names

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4111410 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel inspection of plaintiff’s personal computer by defendants’ expert for purpose of retrieving relevant documents and investigating cause of computer crash; court instead ordered plaintiff to produce all relevant documents from the computer, and if documents were unrecoverable, plaintiff must produce an affidavit from a qualified technology expert explaining the reasons for lack of recovery

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2007 WL 3275300 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where object of two prior orders granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel immediate backup and imaging of certain defendants’ computers was preservation of evidence, court denied plaintiff’s later motion for order adopting 170-word search protocol that was separate and apart from any particular discovery request, since prior orders did not “contemplate that ClearOne have carte blanche access to the electronic data filtered only by keyword searching and privilege objections”

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror images of hard drives

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2007 WL 4171627 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Commenting on various discovery disputes that were unripe for decision, court stated that it agreed that, to the extent plaintiff requested production of entire hard drives from the computers of persons involved in the decision-making process, that the request was ?much too broad,? and stated: ?The Court relies upon litigants to identify responsive documents, wherever they may be located, and to produce them. If, through deposition or otherwise, Mr. Moore learns that searches for documents have been less then thorough and that there may be additional documents located on hard drives or at other places within Abbott’s system, he should first request that an additional search be undertaken. If that produces no documents, he may take discovery on the details of any additional search. If he is dissatisfied with that process, he may apply to the Court for additional relief.?

Nature of Case: Age discrimination in rehiring process

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of key players

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greystone Servicing Corp., 2007 WL 4179864 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Overruling defendant’s relevancy objections to various interrogatories, court ordered defendant to serve full and complete answers to various interrogatories, including one that asked: “Identify any documents, data or other information that relate to or reference the subject matter of this litigation, that have been deleted, physically destroyed, discarded, damaged, or overwritten, whether pursuant to a document retention policy or otherwise.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Potentially deleted data

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected non-party’s claim that it was entitled to recover full amount of fees expended to retrieve, identify and review 25 project files sought by plaintiffs (estimated to be $28,950, including $18,750 in attorneys fees for 50 hours of review), since non-party should have reasonably anticipated being involved in the discovery process of subsequent litigation concerning the marketing/prescribing behavior it studied, the cost could be borne by the non-party as overhead, and cost was less than four fifths (4/5) of one percent of the revenue the non-party generated from work on Seroquel products

Nature of Case: Drug product liability class action

Electronic Data Involved: 25 electronically-maintained project files relating to market research that non-party Harris performed on behalf of AstraZeneca with respect to Seroquel

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata

Tag:Motion to Compel