Motion to Compel – Page 64 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Jarman, No. 11-31217, 2012 WL 2700403 (5th Cir. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court affirmed district court?s granting of defendant?s motion to compel production of a mirror image of a hard drive containing child pornography evidence where defendant?s expert presented unrebutted evidence that she could not conduct her investigation at a government facility because of ?time limitations and restrictions? and thus the circuit court could not conclude that the district court?s determination of ?no ?amply opportunity?? to investigate was clear error; court clarified, however, that it rejected the notion that inconvenience equated to a failure on the part of the government to make the child pornography evidence reasonably available and clarified that when such evidence is made available for inspection at a government facility, ?that is reasonable availability? such that the only issue to be resolved is whether the conditions imposed do not provide ?ample opportunity? for examination of the material

Nature of Case: child pornography; Adam Walsh Act

Electronic Data Involved: Child pornography evidence on hard drive

Barnes v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4101943 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs discovered, late in the discovery time period, that defendant?s database production was incomplete but defendant claimed plaintiffs were merely using the wrong query?a query that defendant had not yet produced?the court ordered that defendant produce the relevant query and left open plaintiffs? option to re-file its motion to compel production of additional data if, upon conducting its analysis with the proper query, it nonetheless determined (and could successfully show) that relevant data was missing

Nature of Case: Civil rights claims related to overdetention and strip searching of inmates

Electronic Data Involved: Database content, relevant database query

Kregg v Maldonado, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 4469935 (N.Y. App. Div. Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where lower court granted defendants? motion to compel the ?entire contents? of plaintiff?s social media accounts, appellate court found the ruling was in error where there was no contention that the contents contradicted plaintiff?s claims and where the appellate court determined the ?proper means? to obtain disclosure of relevant information was a ?narrowly-tailored discovery request seeking only that social-media-based information that relates to the claimed injuries arising from the accident?

Nature of Case: Claims related to injuries from motorcycle accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social media accounts

Chevron Corp. v. Wienberg Group, No. 11-406 (JMF), 2012 WL 4480697 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the state of the ?modern privilege log? Judge Grimm noted the strong trend toward mechanically produced privilege logs with boilerplate information which do not sufficiently describe the documents and the nature of the privilege and ordered defendant to produce factual work product and to properly describe the redacted portions and indicated that he would hold defendant to their 26(g) obligations ?ruthlessly?

Nature of Case: Environmental damages

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged/work product ESI

Clark Cnty. v Jacobs Facilities, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00194-LRH-PAL, 2012 WL 4609427 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite inadvertently producing (or discussing without objection) the at-issue document as many as times thirteen times, the court found that privilege was not waived where the parties stipulated that inadvertent production would not result in waiver and where the analysis under Fed R Evid 502 resulted in a finding that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure, including key word searches for privileged documents, and that prompt steps were taken to secure the document?s return upon defendant learning of the inadvertent production; notably, it appeared that the document was not identified either because it was labeled ?client-attorney? rather than ?attorney-client?

Nature of Case: Alleged gross mismanagement of construction project result in significant costs to plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re White Tail Oilfield Servs., No. 11-0009, 2012 WL 4857777 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the petitioner (for an order compelling production) had access to plaintiff?s Facebook account but argued that merely taking screen shots would not include deleted information and where plaintiff alleged numerous difficulties with using the ?download your information? feature such that he could not produce the contents himself, the court ordered plaintiff to produce the information within 7 days but also noted that because the petitioner had access to the password, it could access the account and utilize the ?download your information? button, which would send that information only to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff would then be obligated to forward that information to Petitioner?s counsel

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910, 2012 WL 4955304 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of additional documents in CERCLA action where government had already produced a ?staggering? amount of discovery and indicated that additional discovery obligations would be burdensome and where the information sought would only be of ?limited relevance? to the issues of the case

Nature of Case: CERCLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., No. 5:10-CV-00522-BR, 2012 WL 4577718 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to image and search a particular hard drive and to conduct a keyword search of certain email accounts using plaintiff?s proposed key word search terms where the court determined that it was reasonable to expect the accounts to contain relevant information, where plaintiffs terms were appropriately limited in number and scope, and where defendant did not assert that the searches would be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drive

Hageman v. Accenture, No. 10-1759 (RHK/TNL), 2012 WL 8993423 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Analyzing a question of control, court ruled that where defendant?s employees could access emails/information stored in a third party?s server ?within his or her normal day-to-day work? then that information was within defendant?s control but that information which was not accessible to the employees was no longer in defendant?s control, and thus properly requested using a Rule 45 subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/emails stored on third party server

Chechelle v. Ward, No. CIV-10-1286-M, 2012 WL 4481439 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where an employer allowed employees to use its computer systems for personal business but informed employees that it reserved the right to monitor and access emails and that emails were considered business records and may be subject to discovery in litigation, the court found that an employee had waived his claims of privilege as to communications with his attorney sent from his work account because it was unreasonable to expect that his attorney-client communications would remain confidential

Nature of Case: Violation of Securities and Exchange Act

Electronic Data Involved: attorney-client communications (emails)

Tag:Motion to Compel