Motion to Compel – Page 117 – Electronic Discovery Law

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery

Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party

Rouse v. II-VI, Inc., 2007 WL 2907935 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Among other findings on plaintiff’s motion to compel, court concluded that keyword search performed by defendant was adequate given the circumstances of the case

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Peak Interests, LLC v. Tara Hills Villas, Inc., 2007 WL 2993817 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff objected to producing laptop because it contained irrelevant confidential or proprietary information and promised to ?provide all requested data, in the electronic format in which it was created,? but production was not forthcoming, and, despite promise to do so plaintiff did not submit affidavit from computer consultant affirming that efforts to retrieve responsive information from laptop had been unsuccessful, court ordered plaintiff to deliver laptop to defense counsel for physical inspection and copying by a neutral third party; court restricted access to any non-responsive information retrieved to counsel of record, their experts, and necessary support staff

Nature of Case: Lease dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Azimi v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 2010937 (D. Kan. July 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff needed requested information to compare his circumstances of disciplinary action and termination with others who held his position, and defendant’s undue burden objection rested on unsupported claim that it would take over 100 hours to retrieve information from various company databases, court overruled objection finding that defendant had not demonstrated undue burden: “At best, it has perhaps shown that compliance would be inconvenient and involve some expense.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized accident and driving histories of other employees

Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying without prejudice plaintiff?s motion, based on spoliation of evidence, to strike defendants? answers or preclude defendants? use of office records to support their defenses; however, court did err in not granting alternative relief requested, i.e., compelling additional discovery, including depositions of certain witnesses, production of records, and inspection of computers, since such additional discovery was reasonably calculated to produce relevant and material evidence and defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Office computer hard drive and information regarding its destruction

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

ATM Exchange, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 2007 WL 1674230 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide verified discovery response indicating that it had produced all relevant and responsive documents and/or information collected from imaged hardrive of key player’s computer, and to provide verified discovery response stating whether or not it had an email document retention policy in place during relevant time period

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Tag:Motion to Compel