Motion to Compel – Page 116 – Electronic Discovery Law

Franks v. Creighton Univ., 2007 WL 4553938 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court sustained defendant’s objection to interrogatories seeking ?voluminous information? regarding University’s computer systems, email systems, software configurations, system maintenance, and the like as being “beyond overbroad,” finding that cost of auditing Creighton University’s entire computer system was not justified by the possibility that “plaintiff might discover tidbits of information possibly related to this lawsuit”

Nature of Case: Claim arising under Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information about university’s computer systems and email systems

Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel on variety of e-discovery topics and ordered defendant to allow plaintiffs? expert reasonable access to (1) phone system and backup system for purpose of recovering inadvertently overwritten phone logs and (2) appropriate personal computers or computer network in order to search for particular documents; plaintiffs further allowed to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning defendant?s computer network, phone system, and document retention and destruction practices

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 4269794 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where accounting information was relevant to plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ corporate form should be disregarded, court ruled that QuickBooks accounting data file for relevant time period be copied to CD and produced to plaintiffs in that form

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks accounting data file

RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3112417 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s untimely motion to re-open discovery and to compel compliance with court?s ?Default Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents? since plaintiff did not raise or discuss issue of e-discovery during initial conferences nor provide a compelling reason to re-open discovery other than its perceived lack of a significant amount of emails

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Muro v. Target Corp., 243 F.R.D. 301 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of documents listed on defendants? privilege log, faulting among other things Target?s failure to identify and describe separately on its privilege log each allegedly privileged message within a string of email communications

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where former employee admitted using file shredder program on his NSA-issued laptop before returning it, and evidence showed use of file shredder program on competitor-issued laptop computer, court found defendants? conduct was ?egregious? and amounted to spoliation but denied plaintiff?s request for entry of default judgment; court instead ordered production of computer hard drive for further examination, dismissed defendants? counterclaims, and ordered defendants to pay attorneys? fees and expenses incurred as a result of defendants? misconduct

Nature of Case: Seller of computer hardware and software sued former employee and competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Resolving various discovery issues, court found defendants? explanation of document search sufficient and observed that plaintiff could not identify any particular document or category of missing documents based on evidence aside from his own incredulity; court added that, if gaps evolved after defendants’ supplementation of production, plaintiff could revisit the issue

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Kmart’s failure to implement litigation hold and “woefully insufficient” efforts to retrieve responsive information did not warrant spoliation sanctions on present record and would be denied without prejudice to creditor’s renewing it in the future should evidence support it; court awarded creditor portion of attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered Kmart, to the extent it had not already done so, to perform a systematic search of all files on certain drives and produce responsive material to counsel within 14 days of order

Nature of Case: Creditor asserted breach of contract and other claims against Chapter 11 debtor in possession

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel