Motion to Compel – Page 35 – Electronic Discovery Law

Moore v. Lowe?s Home Centers, LLC, No. 14-1459 RJB, 2016 WL 687111 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to compel Defendant to conduct additional searches of witnesses? email accounts using 88 new search terms and excluding Plaintiff?s name finding that the request was ?overly broad and not proportional to the case? and reasoning that Plaintiff relied upon a multi-plaintiff case to justify her position and that she had not provided specifics regarding what she reasonably expected to find or shown that the information could not be found through other means, such as by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled for deposition ; court ordered Defendant to produce the relevant policies it operated under where Defendant claimed emails were deleted in the ordinary course of business according to Company policy, and that Defendant should also provide Plaintiff with the date of the deletion and the name of the person who made the deletion or the process of deletion, if known

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. Of De Pere, LLC, No. 15-C-444, 2016 WL 1275046 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiff?s computer or to allow a third party to conduct an examination where Defendant?s request was ?not calculated to produce information relevant to Defendant?s arguments or the proportional needs of the case? and where the court reasoned that even if Defendant found what it was looking for, it would not change its legal position

Nature of Case: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer (for inspection)

Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Family Wireless #1, LLC v. Auto. Techs., Inc., No. 3:15CV01310(JCH), 2016 WL 2930887 (D. Conn. May 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from additional custodians (the parties had previously agreed to seven in total) where Plaintiff showed good cause to compel such searching upon establishing two custodians? involvement with a relevant committee and another?s regular contact with the franchisees and the issues in this case and where the court reasoned (among other things) that: ?The mere fact that many documents have already been produced is not sufficient to establish that there are no other relevant materials to be found.? and that ?It is reasonable to believe that discussions and transmissions of potentially relevant information could transpire below the highest echelon of management; indeed, as defendant acknowledged, some of the lower-level employees had direct communication with the franchisees regarding commissions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from additional custodians (“plaintiffs argue that the custodians should not be limited to decision-makers” and that lower level employees may also have relevant information)

Bruner v. Amer. Honda Motor Corp., No. 1:15-00499-N, 2016 WL 2757401 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Perez v. Mueller, No. 13-C-13-2, 2016 WL 3360422 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought to compel discovery from the Secretary of the US Dept. of Labor, court found the proportionality factors in Rule 2(b)(1) ?easily tilt[ed] in favor of disclosure? reasoning that ?[t]he issues in this litigation are important from a public policy perspective, or at least they should be, lest the Secretary be engaging in years of unnecessary litigation at taxpayer expense? and also reasoning that the ?transaction at issue was for more than $13 million dollars? and that ?the federal government has unlimited resources? while Defendants were ?obviously financing their own defense.?

Nature of Case: ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Frye v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 14-cv-11996, 2016 WL 2758268 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court entered order requiring production of software necessary to review responsive data and ordered that either Defendant would ?provide Plaintiff with a laptop computer loaded with a copy of the responsive data and the software necessary to review that data, to be used solely for the purposes of this litigation and to be returned to Defendants once the litigation is complete? or that Plaintiff could procure a license for the necessary software and be reimbursed by Defendant

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Software necessary to review responsive data

Sharma v. BMW N. Amer. LLC, No. 13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of requested document retention policies where it determined that the policies were relevant and ?may help Plaintiffs to determine the universe of responsive documents and evaluate any gaps in document production? and that the production was proportional to the needs of the case where the modest number of pages at issue rendered the burden of production ?likely minimal, while the benefit of such information would be substantial?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: allegedly defective vehicles

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, No. 12cv0195, 2015 WL 11089521(D.N.M. June 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled limited production from backup tapes and declined to shift costs despite Defendant?s production of archived emails where Defendant failed to turn off its auto-purge and the purged emails would not, therefore, be located in the archive and where Defendant failed to specify the alleged burden and expense and Plaintiff agreed to limit their request; Defendant was required to search its SharePoint site where it utilized the site to communicate with employees, where many documents referred to the SharePoint, and where Defendant did not claim that the information was not reasonably accessible

Nature of Case: Trademark

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, SharePoint

Tag:Motion to Compel