Motion to Compel – Page 55 – Electronic Discovery Law

Freedman v. Weatherford Int?l, Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121(LAK)(JCF), 2014 WL 3767034 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court considered plaintiffs? motion to compel production of ?certain reports comparing the results of the defendants document search and production in this case with? the search terms proposed by the plaintiff and with searches and productions related to prior investigations but denied the motion upon defendant?s showing that preparing only a sample report took ?several weeks, over 250 hours of vendor time, and 750 hours of computer processing time? and where plaintiffs offered ?no adequate factual basis for their belief that the current production [was] deficient? in support of what amounted to a request for ?discovery on discovery?; court acknowledged, however, that ?there are circumstances where such collateral discovery is warranted?

Nature of Case: False and misleading statements in violation of securities laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Capital Ventures Int?l v. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., No. 12-10085-RWZ, 2014 WL 1431124 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s request for all RMBS-related documents that defendants previously produced in other lawsuits or to “any congressional body, regulatory agency, law enforcement agency or person” was overbroad and of speculative relevance; court granted motion to compel but adopted defendants’ proposal to run agreed-upon search terms over their productions to the SEC and NY attorney general, deeming such method sufficient to capture materials relevant to pending action; court also extended relevant time period for electronic searches

Nature of Case: Claims under the Massachussetts Uniform Securities Act relating to residential mortgage-backed security (“RMBS”) offerings

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology, LLC, No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 4386439 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of all emails and spreadsheets in native format, since the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report was a stipulation and therefore Rule 34(b) did not govern their dispute; the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report did not require that all ESI be produced electronically but only stated that ESI may be produced in paper, PDF, or TIFF and that electronic files should be produced in native format when it was more practicable to do so; defendant failed to articulate why metadata was important to emails; and plaintiff had already produced some of its spreadsheets in native format (Excel) where the printouts were difficult to read

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and spreadsheets

Vicente v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC, 2014 WL 3894131 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Although court found City’s preservation efforts “plainly deficient,” as City did not notify its IT department to suspend automatic procedure for eliminating deleted emails after 30 days, nor did it instruct its IT department to assist key individuals in collecting and preserving relevant email or provide assistance in doing so from the legal department, court decline to impose case-dispositive sanctions against City because plaintiff did not discuss the bad faith standard nor show how it was satisfied, and loss of only one email did not constitute significant prejudice where plaintiff collected and presented good deal of evidence on same issue; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of unredacted versions of two litigation hold letters sent by the City to its employees

Nature of Case: Fire Captain alleged claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and state law claims for defamation and injunctive relief

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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.

Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys. LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-296, 2013 WL 682848 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and ordered production of a ?complete copy? of Defendant?s database, despite noting that the request appeared ?facially intrusive,? where the information was ?highly relevant? to the claims in the case, where Defendant failed to provide sufficient information regarding the allegedly proprietary contents of the database, and where an attorneys? eyes only designation was sufficient to protect any trade secrets, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Database

In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK-PSG, 2013 WL 772668 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Applying relevant factors identified in In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), court concluded that consultant?s use of workplace email did not waive privilege where, although the factors were evenly split, there was no evidence that the employee actually monitored employees? emails and because of the ?importance of the attorney-client privilege?

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claim defendants colluded to “avoid poaching each other’s employees and to stabilize their compensation packages.”

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Little Hocking Water Assn., Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 2:09-cv-1081, 2013 WL 1196606 (S.D. Ohio)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant indicated that historical data was unavailable because it had been stored on magnetic tapes that could only be accessed with outdated technology that had been disassembled (VAX computer) and that the tapes had degraded and the information could not be retrieved, the court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery related to the ?failure to preserve or the destruction? of the at-issue data and ordered Defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) designee and to produce all relevant documents related to the ?preservation, failure to preserve and/or destruction? of the historical data and technology

Nature of Case: Groundwater contamination

Electronic Data Involved: Magnetic tapes, VAX computer

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., No. 12-cv-2582 CW (JSC), 2013 WL 1767960 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Kozumi had control over non-party consultant?s emails absent any evidence that defendants could legally compel the non-party to produce the requested documents

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion to Compel