Motion to Compel – Page 51 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Car, Inc., No. 12-cv-2706 (MJD/LIB), 2014 WL 10714011 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing a myriad of motions, court declined to compel Defendant?s production of irrelevant ESI hit upon by agreed-upon search terms reasoning that the rules permit and even encourage relevancy screening ?in an effort to avoid large, largely nonresponsive documents dumps mean to obscure and cloak relevant documents? and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had withheld relevant materials or agreed to the production of all search hits; court declined to compel Defendant?s production of a 30(b)(6)(witness to provide ?discovery on discovery? reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought was ?relevant to – or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to – any claim or defense at issue in the present case? and that the request ?treads dangerously close to encroaching on attorney work product privilege?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI search hits, “discovery on discovery”

The Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257-JJB-RLB, 2014 WL 4373210 (M.D. La. Sep. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where parties? agreed protective order stated that parties would endeavor to agree on search terms to be utilized in the search for responsive ESI, and current discovery dispute centered solely on the reasonableness of the search terms chosen by each party and the willingness of the parties to negotiate reasonable search terms, court rejected defendant?s proposed list of 90 search terms in light of plaintiff?s showing that the broad search would result in undue burden and expense by generating an excess of irrelevant documents, and instead ordered plaintiff to search for responsive documents using plaintiff?s 28 proposed search terms and protocol which the court found reasonable and well-tailored to locate responsive documents; court faulted parties for their lack of diligence in completing discovery within the court?s deadlines, observing: ?In short, both sides chose to do nothing, waiting to see if the other side would blink first. In doing so, they have compromised the deadlines in the court?s scheduling order, the briefing on dispositive motions, and have essentially gambled with the parameters of ESI discovery.?

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Didier v. Abbott Labs, No. 13-2046-JWL, 2014 WL 219851 (D. Kan. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that steps taken by defendants to locate responsive documents and their continued effort to work with plaintiff and supplement their production appeared sufficient, court declined to impose drastic sanctions requested by plaintiff but did allow plaintiff to re-depose particular witness as to emails that were produced after the witness’s deposition since plaintiff may have been prejudiced by her inability to question the witness regarding the content of those emails

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI including text messages

Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn, No. 100333, 2014 WL 1669132 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of defendants’ computer hard drives, as record did not demonstrate that documents plaintiff sought were being unlawfully withheld by defendants and not available from plaintiff’s own information or other sources, and in failing to set out an appropriate protocol to govern the forensic imaging process and protect defendants’ confidential information and preserve any private or privileged information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of employment agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kearney v. JPC Equestrian, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-01419, 2014 WL 5493187 (M.D. Penn. Oct. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of email where defendants flatly represented that additional emails did not exist and custodian swore under oath that his email box had been thoroughly searched and there were no further responsive emails

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

L-3 Commc?ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng?g & Maintenance, Inc., No. 10?cv?02868?MSK?KMT, 2014 WL 3732943 (D. Colo. July 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where special master was appointed to review tens of thousands of documents listed on defendants? privilege log and issue a report and order after determining, as to each document, whether the document was subject to a claim of work product, attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege or ?so intensely personal and so utterly irrelevant that they should be withheld from production,? district court painstakingly reviewed special master’s report de novo with respect to specified documents subject to objection by the parties and made final rulings

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on computer hard drives

Tag:Motion to Compel