Motion to Compel – Page 60 – Electronic Discovery Law

Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-02082-APG-CWH, 2013 WL 5332410 (D. Nev. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge found that defendant had waived attorney-client privilege as to privileged documents provided to testifying expert for use in preparing his expert report, given that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires disclosure of ?the facts or data considered by the witness in forming [his/her opinion(s)],? and expert testified, under oath, that he reviewed the documents he was provided; magistrate judge further ruled that other privileged documents inadvertently produced by defendant were not subject to waiver as parties’ agreed protective order contained strict time line and process for filing motions to challenge claims of privilege after an inadvertent disclosure, and plaintiff did not follow the process

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents

A.J. Amer Agency, Inc. v. Astonish Results, LLC, No. 12-351S, 2013 WL 9663951 (D.R.I. Feb. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Observing that the meet and confer requirement is not an empty formality, court ordered parties to engage in a substantive good faith conferral and to follow five directives: 1) plaintiff?s requests for material in electronic format should be based on what it has already, what it needs for this case, as well as what is reasonably accessible, mindful of the cost-shifting provisions in Rule 26(b)(2)(B); 2) parties should consider what approach would be least costly and burdensome to defendant for production of comparable websites with similar graphics; 3) only sales training materials actually reviewed by the sales team that presented to plaintiff were discoverable; 4) plaintiff should explore what material is already accessible to it using a password that it already has before exploring with defendant what needs to be produced with respect to particular software; 5) once the scope of appropriate discovery is clear, defendant should supplement its responses to specify whether documents exist or not

Nature of Case: Insurance agencies alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing arising from a marketing agreement between defendant to supply websites, digital marketing, training and consulting services

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; website templates, sales training materials

Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV LLC, No. 11 C 1768, 2013 WL 1195829 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court evaluated and overruled each of defendants’ objections to various discovery rulings of magistrate judge, applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review; among other things, district court found that magistrate judge did not err in ruling that defendants’ production of ESI was insufficient in that it lacked all of the required metadata, e.g., author information, information about whether the file was stored, and revision histories for computer-aided designs

Nature of Case: Claimis for patent infringement and design patent infringement arising out of defendants’ manufacture and sale of certain TV mounts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 12-2731-JW, 2013 WL 3819974 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to compel, court declined to compel Defendant to search the email accounts of four Costco employees and to produce any messages containing any of sixty-four search terms where many of the terms were not ?racially charged? and some were duplicative and where, save two of the terms, Plaintiff had not alleged that the terms were ever used by any of Costco?s employees; court denied motion to compel production of text messages sent from certain of Costco?s employees? personal cell phones where the court reasoned that Costco had not issued the phones to the employees for a work purpose and did not have ?possession, custody or control? of the text messages

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination based on race

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, text messages on employees’ personal cell phones

First Fin. Bank N. A. v Bauknecht, No. 12-CV-1509, 2013 WL 3833039 (C.D. Ill. July 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge granted a motion to compel a search of all of defendant?s email accounts , not limited to the 4 specific individuals listed in the Rule 26(a) disclosures, reasoning that the 26(a) disclosure ?only meant? that the individuals identified may be used to support defendant?s claims or defense and that defendant did not indicate that the specified employees were the only ones to have responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant to conduct separate searches of its email, one by ?recipient/sender? and one ?by subject matter? using specified search terms and reasoned that the latter search was broader, but indicated that Plaintiff could pay for the second search. Having declined to limit the accounts to be searched, the court acknowledged the likelihood that accounts unlikely to have relevant information would be included, and shifted 25% of the cost to the requesting party (Plaintiff).

Nature of Case: Breach of Employment Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

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

Thornton v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 12-CV-298-JED-FHM, 2013 WL 1890706 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel