Motion to Compel – Page 139 – Electronic Discovery Law

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”

Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files

Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, LP, 203 F.R.D. 56 (D.N.H. 2001)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defense counsel’s failure to produce computer records and to retain all drafts of settlement documents reflected lack of diligence rather than intentional effort to abuse discovery process; testimony of witness barred and $500 awarded as sanctions

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer records

Williams v. Hernandez, 2004 WL 1161318 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Production request for all email to or from individual defendant during specified period was overly broad and burdensome, since plaintiff failed to justify the wholesale production of emails and failed to indicate why there would be relevant information concerning her claims in such emails

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination, negligent hiring and battery

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Polito v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 2004 WL 3768897 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 28, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Court ordered AOL to reveal the identities of its anonymous subscribers who had transmitted offensive emails and instant messages where plaintiff had established that: (1) she had a prima facie basis for asserting criminal or civil liability against the anonymous authors; (2) the identifying information was relevant to her claims and necessary to obtain redress; (3) she was seeking the information in good faith and not for an improper purpose; and (4) she was unable to obtain the identifying information by alternative means

Nature of Case: Individual sued ISP seeking disclosure of identities of subscribers who sent her offensive email and instant messages

Electronic Data Involved: Identities of subscribers

Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s use of Cyberscrub data wiping software prior to court-ordered inspection of her computer and after agreeing on the record that she would not purge her hard drive or delete any documents, and her misrepresentations about age of hard drive, were not sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal but did warrant an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment and whistleblower claims by former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer

Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: District court’s refusal to enforce subpoena seeking non-party’s research data affirmed

Nature of Case: Herbicide cancellation proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Research data regarding toxicity studies of third party

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Momah v. Albert Einstein Med. Center, 164 F.R.D. 412 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel copy of “list files” screen, which listed each document created by name or number, as well as the size of the document, the date on which it was created and the date on which it was last edited, granted where plaintiff demonstrated need to determine whether key documents were back-dated

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination (discrimination based on race/national origin)

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of “list files” screen showing details of files on computer of individual defendant

Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 2004 WL 764085 (D. Kan. Apr. 8, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defendant’s response to (overbroad) document request, which directed requesting party to defendant’s web site where relevant HR policies and a particular employee handbook could be retrieved, was not insufficient response; court narrowed request and ordered production of any additional documents within 20 days; no sanctions warranted

Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic HR policies and manuals

Wright v. AmSouth Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of “computer diskette or tape copy of all word processing files created, modified and/or access by, or on behalf” of five employees over 2-1/2 year period as overbroad and unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Word processing files

Tag:Motion to Compel