Motion to Compel – Page 53 – Electronic Discovery Law

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

Freres v. Xyngular Corp., No. 2:13-cv-400-DAK-PMW, 2014 WL 1320273 (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of Plaintiff?s cell phone for copying and inspection and rejected Plaintiff?s arguments that the information sought was beyond the scope of discovery, that the inspection should not be allowed because the phone contained personal and/or privileged materials (which the court reasoned the Standard Protective Order would adequately address), and that the inspection was unduly burdensome; court acknowledged Plaintiff?s concern that the phone was her ?only point of contact in the case of an emergency? and ordered Defendant to obtain and pay for an alternate cell phone for Plaintiff?s use while hers was away

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular Phone

West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co., No. 8:13CV47, 2014 WL 2515198 (D. Neb. June 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced thousands of documents on disc and in hard copy, and divided some of the electronic documents into files on the disc but otherwise provided no indices to guide defendants to responsive materials, court found plaintiff?s responses insufficient and ordered plaintiff to produce index or other tool to guide defendants to the documents responsive to each individual request for production

Nature of Case: Company sued competitor, and former employees who had resigned to join competitor, for misappropriation of confidential business information, tortious interference with business relationships, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced on disc

Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. v. Xiaolong Wang, No. 13-11348-DJC, 2014 WL 4687542 (D. Mass. Sep. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained hard copy business records that they produced electronically on CD-ROM, but did not make a sufficient showing that documents were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business since defendants provided no details regarding where and how documents were maintained, court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond to the categories of documents requested by plaintiffs; court further ruled that defendants need not ?affirm that their document searches and productions are complete without qualification, or that no additional responsive documents exist,? but directed defendants, once they had completed their search and produced all documents they intended to produce, to confirm their efforts in locating responsive documents were complete and whether they were withholding any documents

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents scanned and produced on CD-ROM

Clauss Constr. v. UChicago Argonne, LLC, No. 13 C 5479, 2014 WL 5390665 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff discovered numerous boxes of relevant or potentially relevant documents that had not been previously produced, but did not produce them in electronic format with Bates-labeling in accordance with parties’ agreed production protocol and instead provided photographs of the documents and boxes and some incomplete indexes, defendants successfully argued that plaintiff either should have to comply with parties’ agreement and produce material in correct format or nonconforming documents should be excluded; plaintiff chose to have newly discovered documents excluded from evidence; court found that monetary sanctions were appropriate and awarded defendant its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in filing the motion and attending hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 5859024 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted plaintiffs? motion for reconsideration, but adhered to its previous ruling denying plaintiffs? request that defendant merge two separate data compilations from two distinct data sources – one from a non-party and the other from defendant – to enable plaintiffs? experts to have a single ?pristine? data set to use in the case, as plaintiffs were not entitled to receive ESI in their preferred format nor were defendants required to create a document for production; however, because it struck the court that it would be in both parties? interests to have the data plaintiffs sought and for both parties? experts to work from the same data set, the court suggested that the parties cooperate in hiring a neutral third party to conduct the comparison, which would provide plaintiffs, to some extent, the data sought while at the same time prevent an attack on the data?s integrity

Nature of Case: Class action brought by auto body companies alleging that defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Estimating data from two sources

AKH Co., Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG, 2014 WL 2760860 (D. Kan. June 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that documents be produced in native format but defendant produced documents in both hard copy format and in a few very large PDF files, court found that defendant had adequately explained why the documents were not produced in their native format (proprietary nature of certain software used by defendant, defendant’s right to withhold privileged information, need to limit production of irrelevant information regarding unrelated policyholders, the added costs of re-producing information already submitted to plaintiff in converted PDF format), and ruled that, absent a need for metadata as to a particular document, it would not require defendant to re-produce the information

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and settlement of trademark dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 11 N.E.3d 605 (Mass. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where the facts that would be conveyed by a criminal defendant through his act of decryption of computer files — i.e., his ownership and control of the computers and their contents, knowledge of the act of encryption, and knowledge of the encryption key — are already known to the government and are thus a “foregone conclusion,” compelling the defendant to enter his encryption key does not violate the defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment because the defendant is only telling the government what it already knows; accordingly, court reversed trial judge’s denial of government’s motion to compel decryption and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings

Nature of Case: Criminal case regarding mortgage fraud scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; encryption key

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Tag:Motion to Compel