Motion to Compel – Page 53 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Kelley v. Smith?s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00856-RCJ-CWH, 2014 WL 6474026 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Store video was not protected from production by the impeachment evidence exception because the video?s impeachment value was too closely linked to its substantive value, and the evidence the video offered could not be realistically confined to use for impeachment purposes only; court granted both plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the video and plaintiff?s motion for protective order, which protected plaintiff from being forced to submit to a deposition without first being able to view the video

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Store video containing footage of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall

E.E.O.C. v. Forge Ind. Staffing, Inc., No. 1:14-mc-00090-SEB-MJD, 2014 WL 6673574 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where former employee filed claim with EEOC alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, and EEOC issued a subpoena to employer staffing agency seeking information to determine how long the staffing agency had required applicants to waive statutorily protected statutes of limitations, court declined to enforce the subpoena, finding that the EEOC’s subpoena exceeded its authority in that the information sought went beyond the issues arising out of former employee?s individual charge; court further determined that the burden imposed on the staffing agency far exceeded the minimal relevance of the evidence sought, given that staffing agency processed 130,000 temporary employee applications during the time period covered by the subpoena, applications were not kept in a central repository or electronically, and compliance would require manual review of each employment application maintained in paper format at each of its ten office locations and would disrupt agency’s day-to-day operations

Nature of Case: Motion for enforcement of administrative subpoena issued to staffing agency relating to investigation of former employee’s claim of sexual harrassment and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of employment application form used by staffing agency between January 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014, including all pages of and revisions to each form

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

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

In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, 2014 WL 5462496 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court overruled defendant?s objections to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted the direct action plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents located in France in accordance with the FRCP; court evaluated a series of factors in weighing whether foreign laws like the French Blocking Statute excused compliance with an American discovery request, and concluded that the relevant factors weighed in favor of permitting discovery to go forward in France pursuant to the FRCP; court dismissed defendant?s argument that it would be subject to criminal sanctions if it complied with discovery requests outside the Hague Convention process, observing that there was no realistic risk of prosecution under the French Blocking Statute

Nature of Case: Violations of U.S. antitrust laws

Electronic Data Involved: Documents held by a defendant in France that were relevant to such defendant’s communications with competitors, and documents produced to various foreign regulatory agencies during prior investigations related to price fixing in the CRT industry

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

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

Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc., 18 F.Supp.3d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Observing that, generally, social media content is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, nevertheless, a defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that plaintiff has limited from public view, court denied defendant?s motion to compel, questioning the relevance of the material sought and finding that ?the burden of requiring all of the opt-in Plaintiffs to review all of their postings on potentially multiple social media sites over a period of four years and determine which posts relate to their job, hours worked, or this case, would be an ?extremely onerous and time-consuming task’?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Posts to social media accounts and private messages sent from social media sites

Finkle v. Howard Cnty., Md., No. SAG?13?3236, 2014 WL 6835628, (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court granted Defendant?s Motion for Protective Order and denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, finding that Plaintiff?s Interrogatory seeking the identification of all email accounts, social media services, internet discussion groups, cellular telephone or text messaging services used by certain County employees from January 2010 through the present, for the purpose of issuing a subpoena to the appropriate service providers, would impose an undue burden on Defendant and that Plaintiff was not lawfully entitled to the content of those accounts under the Stored Communications Act (?SCA?); regarding its reliance on the SCA, the court specifically reasoned that ?there is no reason to invite an unfettered ?fishing expedition? into the personal communications of non-party employees without a viable reason to believe that relevant information would be accessible to Plaintiff or would be contained therein.?

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination (Title VII)

Electronic Data Involved: Account information for all email, social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), discussion groups, text messaging services, etc.

Tag:Motion to Compel