Motion to Compel – Page 55 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., No. 12cv1737 JM (JLB), 2014 WL 3867495 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought to expand the scope of defendants? review and argued that defendants? alleged cost and burden would be lower than represented because defendants based their representations on manual review, rather than predictive coding. Defendants responded that manual review was still necessary where the predictive coding tool merely indicated a probability that a document was relevant and was not ?foolproof? – thus requiring the review. Relying on Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court concluded that the additional discovery would be unduly burdensome and declined to grant Plaintiff?s request. The court also addressed Plaintiff?s request to require the defendants to run documents already produced through the predictive coding process. The court declined, reasoning that it had previously approved defendants? method of ?using linear screening with the aid of search terms? but, where defendant was willing to run additional terms, directed the parties to meet to discuss such terms.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Lee v. Chicago Youth Ctrs., 69 F. Supp. 3d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Reasoning that ?[h]aving contented themselves to file a response to the motion to compel that was conclusory and factually and legally unsupported, the defendants must live with the consequences of that decision,? the court found privilege was waived as to two allegedly inadvertently produced emails; court?s analysis also criticized Defendants? attempts to rectify the inadvertent production where, upon being notified of possible inadvertent production, they relied upon their vendor?the same vendor responsible for the inadvertent production in the first place?to search for privileged information which the vendor subsequently missed and also criticized defense counsels? failure to undertake a review of the information themselves: ?There is a good deal of merit to the plaintiff?s contention that defendants? four lawyers, who are members of a firm whose ?website boasts a roster of ?nearly 800 attorneys,? having ?delegated document review to an unidentified outside vendor (particularly after having been specifically advised of a potential problem with the production)? simply cannot be heard to argue that they took ?the kind of prompt reasonable steps to rectify any error in production which should allow them now to assert inadvertence and avoid a finding of waiver.??

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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)

Virco Mfg. Corp. v. Hertz Furniture Sys., No. CV 13-2205 JAK(JCx), 2014 WL 12591482 (C.D. Cal. Fan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: The court granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of email attachments, noting that ?by failing to produce email attachments, plaintiff has effectively redacted, based upon relevance, portions of documents it otherwise apparently views to be discoverable/relevant/responsive to defendants? discovery requests.? The court further noted that Plaintiff ?offered no evidence that it would suffer any undue burden from producing such electronic data.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Keller v. Nat?l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., No. CV 12-72-m-DLC-JCL, 2013 WL 27731 (D. Mont. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiffs? production of printouts of all social media content where the court recognized that discovery of social network content has been allowed by other courts upon a showing that publically available information on those sites undermines the plaintiff?s claims and where no such showing was made in the present case

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network Information: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.

Tapp v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 9131N, 2013 WL 3622969 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Lower court ?correctly determined that plaintiff?s mere possession and utilization of a Facebook account is an insufficient basis to compel plaintiff to provide access to the account or to have the court conduct an in camera inspection? and that ?to warrant discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff?s Facebook account?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Fawcett v. Altieri, 960 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court acknowledged the discoverability of social media content but reasoned that ?[i]n order to obtain a closed or private social media account by a court order for the subscriber to execute an authorization for their release, the adversary must show with some credible facts that the adversary subscriber has posted information or photographs that are relevant to the facts of the case at hand,? and thus denied defendant’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social network content (Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, Flickr, etc.)

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

Ameranth v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 2013 WL 636936 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of ?the entire source code tree for each accused product? where it found that Plaintiff had not shown the need to fully understand all operations as opposed to ?only those aspects accused in the infringement claims? and where the alleged burden of production was great; court ordered that production of relevant portions of source code must include original files names and be in native format

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Tag:Motion to Compel