Motion to Compel – Page 119 – Electronic Discovery Law

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 2007 WL 1192401 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel a more detailed answer to interrogatory seeking information about the “location” of electronically stored information, but ordered defense counsel to immediately provide plaintiff’s counsel with further information about its answer to the interrogatory “and any other information pertaining to electronic discovery issues”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, specific performance

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

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

Hsieh v. Nicholson, 2007 WL 2438315 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding any request for spoliation sanctions unwarranted, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of emails where defendant made adequate showing that, after reasonable search and inquiry, he was unable to locate requested emails, plaintiff submitted no contrary evidence, and plaintiff identified no flaws in defendant’s search methods

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email plaintiff claimed was sent in 2000

Cambrians for Thoughtful Dev., U.A. v. Didion Milling, Inc., 2007 WL 5618671 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff?s claims that work product protection extended only to documents prepared in anticipation of the ongoing litigation, court denied motion to compel email strings between attorney and employees of defendant prepared in anticipation of government enforcement action, especially where enforcement action and ongoing litigation were closely related, as was the case here

Nature of Case: Violations of Clean Air Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced digitized documents from defendant’s inspection of nine boxes of hard copy documents (some 10,000 pages) per the parties’ agreement, court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide an index of such digitized documents, finding that Rule 34 does not require a party to create an index

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence and breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Index of digital documents

MicroBrightField, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825 (D. Vt. Mar. 30, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered: “The parties should also resolve MBF’s request for production of Boehringer’s computers and data storage devices. In the event the parties do not cooperate and resolve the discovery issues, the Court will hold a hearing and require attorneys to be present.”

Nature of Case: Former employer alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, unauthorized access of its computer system, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s computer and data storage devices

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 WL 3050860 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that defendants did not produce all requested electronic documents and that defense counsel had not conducted a proper inquiry to determine whether or not all electronic documents were produced, court ordered defendants to verify that all requested electronic documents were produced and to produce any electronic documents not yet provided

Nature of Case: Fraud and related claims stemming from BART construction subcontracts

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Tag:Motion to Compel