Motion to Compel – Page 127 – 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

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

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court declined to compel American Express to search for email sent from and to certain executives who were no longer employed by American Express, since the moving parties had not agreed to search for email sent from or to their own former executives and American Express had already produced some 27,501 emails sent to or from certain former executives through the production of email from other custodians

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former executives

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3230157 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ruled that American Express would be allowed to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to address the topics of Wells Fargo’s document retention, collection and production efforts in the litigation, but that such deposition would be limited to three hours; court further noted: “American Express and Wells Fargo have each declined to produce certain information, for example, the content of their ‘litigation hold’ notices. In such situations, it is unlikely that I would compel one party to produce such information, unless American Express and all of the Bank Defendants stipulate to simultaneous exchange of all their information concerning a given topic.”

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notices

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request that defendants produce metadata for all records maintained in electronic form produced to date, where plaintiff did not demonstrate a particularized need for metadata, the parties had no agreement about the format of production of electronic files, and plaintiff did not seek metadata until months after defendants had produced hard copy and electronic copies of documents; if plaintiff still desired metadata, court suggested plaintiff identify specific documents for which it was needed

Nature of Case: Antitrust and anti-competitive conspiracy claims

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

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

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Optowave Co., Ltd. v. Nikitin, 2006 WL 3231422 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated warnings not to destroy relevant evidence, defendant allowed another party to reformat hard drives of his employees’ computers without first preserving relevant files contained on computers to be reformatted, resulting in loss of crucial electronic evidence, court found that adverse inference instruction was appropriate sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and customer files

Tag:Motion to Compel