Motion to Compel – Page 48 – Electronic Discovery Law

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Campbell Alliance Group, Inc. v. Dandekar, No. 5:13-CV-00415-FL, 2014 WL 145037 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion for additional, expedited discovery to conduct forensic examination of additional storage devices, and set out in full the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Protocol for Forensic Investigation and Analysis

Nature of Case: Former employer asserted breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against former employees for alleged violations of post-employment activity restrictions and confidentiality covenants contained in employment agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Various electronic storage devices

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Peterson v. Matlock, No. 11-2594 (FLW)(DEA), 2014 WL 5475236 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff’s medical records were previously provided in a PDF file organized in reverse chronological order and plaintiffs agreed to provide metadata contained in the audit trail, and plaintiff then sought production of the records either in their native format with the required software reader or broken down into “searchable headings,” court found that defendants had demonstrated they would suffer substantial hardship and/or expense in complying with plaintiff?s request to provide the records in their native format, and that such burden outweighed plaintiff?s interests in receiving the records in native format

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged assault by correctional officers

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s electronically stored medical records

Stewart v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., No. 12-005320KD-B, 2014 WL 12600282 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where responding party claimed that cloning and searching the hard drives from ?old computers? changed out in 2010 would cost more than $13,000 and submitted the affidavit of its CEO in support of its claim that the information was not reasonably accessible, the court reasoned it was ?not clear? that the ESI was not reasonably accessible or that the cost outweighed the ?importance and usefulness of the emails? and ordered the responding party to make arrangements for a forensic search of the CEO?s old hard drive which ?should yield representative information regarding the accessibility of the requested emails, the probability of locating the emails, the usefulness of the emails, the actual cost likely to be incurred for a search of all of the old computer hard drives at issue?; court also denied cost-shifting request ?at this time?

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on old computer hard drives

Dixon v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-227-PPS-PRC, 2014 WL 2881589 (N.D. Ind. June 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff requested production of ESI in native format and defendant failed to object (thus waiving any objection) but produced the requested data as scanned .pdfs and argued that the native format would contain the same information but would be more difficult to understand (because of shortcut codes, etc.), the court reasoned that plaintiff nevertheless requested native format to no objection and ordered that the native format be produced

Nature of Case: Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database

U.S. v. Capitol Supply, Inc., No. 13-mc-0373 (BAH), 2014 WL 1046006 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where government had requested production in specific electronic formats (Database, Access or Excel) but company produced materials in PDF format that lacked requested detail and was not searchable across multiple documents, court found production insufficient and noted that the fact that company’s databases lacked certain functionality did not relieve company from responding to subpoenas with responsive information in usable, searchable format and directed company to produce responsive information “in a format that is reasonably usable, which includes searchable, just as its databases are presumably designed to respond to search queries”

Nature of Case: Investigation by Office of the Inspector General re whether company violated the False Claims Act; government petitioned for summary enforcement of OIG supboenas to Capitol Supply, Inc.

Electronic Data Involved: Sales data, country-of-origin information

Gloucester Twp. Hous. Auth. V. Franklin Square Assocs., No. 12-0953 (RMB/AMD), 2014 WL 3974168 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court evaluated five factors to determine that defendant’s inadvertent disclosure waived the attorney-client privilege, where defendant did not describe the precautions taken, if any, to prevent the disclosure of privileged information, but instead relied on the purportedly voluminous nature of the production, the disputed letters set forth communications between attorney and client concerning clearly privileged, substantive information relating to the litigation, the letters were produced in the litigation on two separate occasions, and defense counsel waited over three months after the letters’ production before attempting to rectify the disclosures and only discovered the inadvertent disclosure while preparing for a deposition

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged letters

Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:13-cv-00582-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 5529895 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel, court rejected defendant’s assertion of irrelevance and its conclusory assertions of burdensomeness, finding that defendant had failed to “show with specificity” that plaintiff’s requests were overly burdensome and noting that defendant’s contentions would have more force if defendant had provided an estimate of the cost or hours involved in searching, compiling, and producing the requested information; addressing the discovery of ESI ?more directly,? court ordered defendant to file a disclosure stating the names of all custodians whose ESI was searched, the scope of the ESI searched, date ranges searched for each custodian and specific search terms used, and also provide such information for any additional custodians whose ESI would be searched in light the withdrawal of defendant?s objections; plaintiff was then required, within seven days, to propose a list of additional custodians and scope of ESI, date ranges and specific search terms for such custodians, following which the parties should endeavor to reach agreement regarding the scope of additional e-discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Warren Indus., Inc. v. PMG Ind. Corp., No. 13-CV-13026, 2014 WL 5705011 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ argument that they did not have access to the email of defendants? Chairman of the Board because the email was kept on a server in Germany that defendants did not own or control, and ruled that, although defendants’ IT manager may not be able to access the Chairman’s email from his Indiana location, the Chairman, as Chairman of the Board of defendant companies, “indeed has possession, custody, and control over his own e-mail communications, regardless of where the server containing these e-mails [was] located; court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and awarded plaintiff its attorney’s fees and costs associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on server in Germany

Tag:Motion to Compel