Motion to Compel – Page 122 – Electronic Discovery Law

New World Sys. Corp. v. Jones, 2006 WL 1234901 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court set hearing date for plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for expedited discovery; plaintiff agreed to allow defense counsel access to laptop computer that individual defendant possessed while in the employ of plaintiff, for the purpose of making a mirror image of the hard drive for examination by a computer forensics expert hired by defendant; court allowed defense counsel 14 days after the hard drive was “mirrored” to conduct expedited discovery subject to confidentiality order agreed to by parties

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Cioe & Wagenblast, P.C., 2006 WL 1408402 (N.D. Ind. May 19, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to reconsider prior discovery ruling that MBNA was not entitled to production of responsive correspondence on diskette, stating that MBNA had remedies under the FRCP if defendants failed to produce legible paper copies as ordered in the prior ruling; court also flatly rejected any attempt by MBNA to obtain discovery through inspection of defendants’ computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Bank alleged firm had conducted “sham” arbitrations with bank’s cardholders

Electronic Data Involved: Word processing files

Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Ruling on defendants’ request for reconsideration and after viewing spreadsheets in camera, magistrate ordered defendants to file sworn affirmation and memorandum of law identifying with specificity the allegedly privileged information they contended was in spreadsheets; court further ordered that the contested records be redacted and produced to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets containing payroll and timekeeping data

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

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce “an exact computer disc copy of the actual Quickbooks program used by Defendants to compile their data”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Quickbooks program

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

Advante Int?l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 1806151 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Motion for forensic examination of opposing party’s computer hard drives denied where movant failed to provide any details about how the examination would be conducted and did not present specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence sufficient to justify the relief requested; instead, court found appropriate the “compromise” suggested by plaintiff that its own attorneys personally review the computers to ensure that any additional responsive documents that may exist in readable form were produced

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 2006 WL 1792413 (6th Cir. June 28, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Sixth circuit affirmed dismissal of complaint as a discovery sanction under FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and the award of all attorney fees to defendants under 42 U.S.C. ? 1988, where plaintiffs “repeatedly touted and promised to produce critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence, then failed or refused to produce it; belatedly produced an incomplete collection of evidence; falsely stated that they had produced all the evidence ordered; deliberately withheld evidence; strained credulity by claiming that they gave away original tapes of critical conversations, keeping none for themselves, and made no effort to get copies; asserted a nonsensical privilege as a reason for failing to produce more or better evidence of defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements; agreed to seek permission from the state court to produce financial and accounting documents, but never did so; and so on”

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Audio and videotapes supporting plaintiffs’ claims

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Tag:Motion to Compel