Motion to Compel – Page 58 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Jo Ann Howard & Assocs. v. Cassity, No. 4:09CV01252 ERW, 2013 WL 3788804 (E.D. Mo. July 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Alleged inadvertent production found to be waiver of privilege where the court found the production was voluntary (noting that the document had been produced twice and was clearly identified in the production log); found that reasonable precautions were not taken to prevent disclosure (citing the failure to label the document as privileged and the low number of other documents in the production and reasoning that blaming an error by the file room staff did not ?excuse? the failure to supervise production); and found that Defendants failed to take prompt measures to rectify the disclosure (citing the failure to claim privilege when asked for further details regarding the document in the course of discovery and the almost seventeen month delay between the ?first voluntary production? and the assertion of privilege)

Nature of Case: RICO, violations of fiduciary duty, gross negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Narrative summary of events composed by Defendant

Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s iphone where there was no dispute that the at-issue phone was not the phone that received the at-issue text message and where Plaintiff?s expert indicated that the relevant iphone had been backed up on plaintiff?s personal computer; court denied motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s personal computer where Defendant failed to demonstrate that the information sought was not reasonably accessible through other sources (e.g., the co-defendant that allegedly sent the at-issue text message), where plaintiff had offered to search for whatever information defendant sought, where plaintiff had already provided considerable data, and where Defendant?s request was essentially a fishing expedition; court reasoned that ?absent a showing of misconduct? raising questions regarding the completeness of Plaintiff?s expert?s search, no inspection by Defendant was warranted and ordered the parties to cooperate to create a protocol for plaintiff?s expert to use

Electronic Data Involved: iphone, contents of personal computer, text-message

Soffer v. Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01407-JAD-GWF, 2013 WL 4499011 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court indicated that dispute over whether to compel Defendants to conduct additional searches in an expanded date range turned on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and the question of whether the burden outweighed the likely benefit but, citing Plaintiff?s prior offer to more narrowly tailor the search terms to be utilized and to contribute to the reasonable costs of Defendants? review, ordered the parties to meet to attempt to reach agreement on a more focused search and to negotiate a reasonable cost sharing agreement and indicated that the court would consider shifting ?an appropriate share of the costs of production? once a determination of the cost was made

Nature of Case: Interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, No. 4:12-CV-1253 CAS, 2013 WL 4028275 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted cross-claim plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-claim defendant to produce computer and cell phone used by decedent by shipping those devices from Jonesboro, Arkansas to St. Louis, Missouri (at cross-claim plaintiff’s expense) for forensic examination because cross-claim defendant’s production of copies of cell phone text messages and a non-forensic copy of the computer hard drive were insufficient to respond to plaintiff’s request for production of the devices themselves, since the copies did not allow for forensic examination of the devices, and because the slight inconvenience to cross-claim defendant in not having access to the cell phone and computer for a period of time was outweighed by the significant additional expense cross-claim plaintiff would incur if she were required to examine the devices in Jonesboro

Nature of Case: Probate matter

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and cell phone used by decedent

Johnson v. PPI Tech. Servs., L.P., No. 11-2773, 2013 WL 4508128 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to requests for social media content reasoning that although such content was potentially discoverable, Defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the material sought was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? and went on to reason that: ?Simply placing their mental and physical conditions at issue is not sufficient to allow PPI to rummage through Johnson’s or Croke’s social media sites. Almost every plaintiff places his or her mental or physical condition at issue, and this Court is reticent to create a bright-line rule that such conditions allow defendants unfettered access to a plaintiff’s social networking sites that he or she has limited from public view.?

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network content (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

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.

Whiteamire Clinic, P.A., Inc. v. Quill Corp., No. 12 C 5490, 2013 WL 5348377 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes

In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2342, 2013 WL 8445354 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon the Plaintiffs? Steering Committee?s motion to compel Pfizer to produce a log identifying documents withheld from production as non-responsive or irrelevant, particularly email attachments, the court noted the prior comprehensive treatment of the question of whether attachments must be produced in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) and concluded in this case that requiring defendant to log or produce with redactions those documents previously withheld was not warranted absent a showing of a ?systematic failure in Pfizer?s document review? or that the failures were ?on a large scale? or the product of an ?unjustified decision? but reasoned that the burden of requiring a log or other justification for the witholdings going forward would not carry as high a burden and ordered the parties to confer to determine how best to track that information going forward

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Attachments to ESI, particularly email

Kwan Software Eng?g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC, No. C 12-03762 SI, 2013 WL 5487421 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of ESI in searchable form with metadata but Defendant produced TIFF images without metadata, court ordered re-production of ESI in accordance with parties’ agreement and amended the pretrial schedule

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and metadata

Tag:Motion to Compel