Motion to Compel – Page 56 – Electronic Discovery Law

Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 12-01971-CW-(KAW), 2013 WL 633406 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: ?In light of the availability of source code analyzer tools and the extraordinary burden that a compiler would impose on [Defendant], the court denie[d] [Plaintiff?s] request for a compiler for source code review?; court also declined to compel defendant?s production of printouts of 14 complete files (of source code) and ordered the parties to meet to determine which limited portions of the source code would be produced in hard copy and to arrange for [Plaintiff?s] experts to inspect the complete file ?to determine the limited portions of the source code needed, if necessary.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code, compiler software

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

Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01180, 2013 WL 1176504 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiffs? Facebook or other social media pages absent a threshold showing that the accounts would contain information within the scope of discovery but concluded that information stored on Plaintiff?s computer ?could lead reasonably to the discovery of admissible evidence? and required that the parties agree to a word search of Plaintiff?s computer by a neutral third party to ?asses whether Plaintiff?s computer contains relevant information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination/harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook and social media, personal computer

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, Nos. 2:12-cv-510, 2:12-cv-929, 2013 WL 1282384 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection and imaging of certain of defendant?s computers/servers/devices in case involving accusations of misappropriation of confidential information by plaintiff?s former employees for the benefit of defendant but also granted defendant a protective order limiting disclosure for ?attorneys? eyes only?

Nature of Case: Missapropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, No. 12SA287, 2013 WL 1557840 (Colo. Apr. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone

Neustar, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 12-02574 EJD, 2013 WL 1755489 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In dispute over search terms and the appropriate date range for discovery, court cited Defendant?s declarations showing that Plaintiffs? proposed terms would result in a far greater volume of ESI to be reviewed and would triple the costs of production and found ?no reason? not to use Defendant?s proposed terms and reasoned that ?no search is ever perfect,? but that Defendant?s terms would ?likely yield sufficient documents?; date range was restricted to time period of the date of the contract to the present rather than Plaintiffs? proposal to begin two years before the agreement was formed

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Athome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc?y, No. 1:12-cv-053-BLW, 2013 WL 1819691 (D. Idaho Apr. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of metadata and, noting that Defendant ?would have produced the requested metadata but for an inadvertent change to the creation date on certain documents,? indicated that the real question was ?how to resolve that mistake, which essentially requires the court to apply the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) balancing test;? court considered fact that Defendant ?created the problem? although not in bad faith (?accidents happen?) and further found that the burden of production was not ?all that great? and ordered the production of the requested metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: metadata

Mazza v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 1:12 CV 142, 2013 WL 2296657 (N.D. W. Va. May 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought relevant information but failed to sufficiently limit the scope of her requests temporally or geographically, court agreed with defendant that the requests as written were overly broad but found that defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the burden of responding to modified, limited requests would outweigh the benefit or that cost shifting was required and thus ordered defendants to respond to the requests, subject to the courts temporal, geographic, and fact-specific limitations

Nature of Case: Predatory lending

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

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