Motion to Compel – Page 125 – Electronic Discovery Law

PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where one defendant failed to comply with court’s orders regarding forensic inspection and copying of hard drives, and there was evidence of data spoliation and physical tampering with computer hardware, court concluded that default judgment was appropriate sanction and also ordered the defendant to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs that its misbehavior caused plaintiff to incur

Nature of Case: Insurance fraud, insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Various hard drives and backup drives

Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to providing hard copies of payment data and offered instead to make its database available to plaintiff in New York, court questioned prudence of offer and ordered production to take place in Houston, adding that parties should attempt to arrange for materials to be produced electronically and directing them to confer on method of production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Raytheon Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 2006 WL 2570545 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied as overly broad plaintiff’s request that government identify and produce all investigations and electronic databases concerning contamination at World War II Army Air Force bases, and instead ordered government to, at plaintiff’s indicated preference, either provide an index to the electronic databases or provide a knowledgeable member of its staff to assist plaintiff in its review of the databases

Nature of Case: CERCLA litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Pioneer Res. Corp. v. Nami Res.Co., LLC, 2006 WL 1635651 (E.D. Ky. June 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Defendant ordered to make good faith effort to locate responsive emails that were discussed at deposition; if defendant claims that such documents cannot be retrieved, defendant must file a written statement indicating all steps taken to obtain said emails and explain in detail why they could not be retrieved; defendant further warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions being imposed

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding that requested documents were relevant and properly discoverable, court granted motion to compel production of various financial records, including an electronic copy of party’s Quickbooks files, and ordered that the records be produced under protective order in a form agreed to by the parties

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of Quickbooks 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

Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions of $36,391 where defendants “made no effort whatsoever to locate and provide either documentary or electronic data discovery,” and erroneously represented that relevant electronic evidence was irretrievable, thus giving plaintiffs no choice but to incur the extraordinary expense of hiring a computer consulting firm to retrieve what was purportedly ?irretrievable?

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

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

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:Motion to Compel