Motion to Compel – Page 55 – 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

Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV412-111, 2013 WL 434974 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that the document index which identified which Bates stamped document responded to which document request was not sufficient to enable a meaningful review and that Plaintiff?s counsel was ?unable to decipher the content? of what was produced (apparently because of the presence of ?jargon? and other codes), the court found that the document production was adequate under Rule 34, noting that there was no suggestion that the documents were not produced as they were kept in the usual course of business and that they were identified by Bates stamps to correspond with specific requests but nonetheless ordered counsel to confer in good faith to attempt resolution of ?any ?deciphering? issues? “(e.g. defense counsel or staff could sit down with plaintiff?s counsel and explain any coding or abbreviations?or have a corporate representative provide a glossary of some sort)”

Nature of Case: Lender-liability arising from alleged wrongful foreclosure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Momentive Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Alexander, No. 2:13-cv-275, 2013 WL 2151477 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to discover whether flash drives containing its sensitive information had been accessed by defendant since he started working for his new employer and also sought production of all relevant information contained on defendant?s laptop, the court indicated that Plaintiff?s expert would be allowed to image and search defendant?s laptop to determine if the flash drives had been accessed and to produce to Plaintiff any ?actual files? from those drives determined to be on defendant?s computer without first allowing defendant to conduct a review for relevance or privilege; as to other relevant documents found on the laptop which were not taken from the at-issue flash drives, the court ordered that any keyword hits be provided to defendant to review before production; to assuage concerns that relevant information would be withheld, court ordered defendant to prepare a log of any documents withheld on relevance grounds to allow the parties to have ?reasoned discussions? regarding those withholdings

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete agreement, misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Air Crash Near Clarence Center, New York, No. 09-md-2085, 2013 WL 6073635 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Airline sought production of decedent?s son?s Facebook friends list for purposes of assessing the son?s Asperger?s disorder and his ability to socialize and communicate with others, court found the Airline?s argument of relevance unpersuasive in light of the ?ease with which ?friends? can be collected on Facebook? and further reasoned that the production of the other contents of the son?s account (which was provided by his mother – who was a party) was sufficient

Nature of Case: Airline crash

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook “friend list”

Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264, 2013 WL 5979629 (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules

Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Brudnicki, No. 5:12-cv-00398-RS-GRJ, 2013 WL 2948098 (N.D. Fla. June 14, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where discovery would be asymmetrical and Plaintiff would be producing the majority of documents in the case, court approved a protocol that would require the parties to cooperate to develop search terms to identify potentially relevant documents to be uploaded to a database for Defendant?s review for the purpose of identifying documents to be produced and which would require Defendant to pay $.06 per page produced and $225 monthly for each gigabyte uploaded into the database; court held cost-shifting was appropriate where Plaintiff had already identified and collected the potentially responsive information at great expense and compared the $.06 charge to photocopying costs in traditional discovery and also cited and considered the factors of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provide authority for cost shifting and ?strongly supported? the Plaintiff?s proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Action against Bank’s former directors for negligence and gross negligence related to approval of 11 transactions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in FDIC database

Tag:Motion to Compel