Motion to Compel – Page 65 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entm?t., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4504818 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over jurisdictional discovery, court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a ?small slice? of defendant?s Google Analytics data (which tracks and accumulates data related to websites? visitors) related to the number of visitors to defendant?s website(s) from Iowa-based IP addresses; court agreed with plaintiff that it was entitled to ?more? than a hard copy PDF ?screen grab? of the relevant information and indicated that it anticipated production as HTML pages that could be opened with a standard internet browser, but that if that was not an agreeable solution, another hearing would be held

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Google Analytics

Richards v. Hertz Corp., —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5503841 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the public contents of one plaintiff?s Facebook account established that it was ?reasonable to believe? that other relevant information may also be present but where lower court only directed plaintiff to produce certain relevant photographs, appellate court remanded with instruction that the court conduct in camera review of ?all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos? to determine which of those materials, if any, were relevant; as to a separate plaintiff where no showing of potential relevance was made, appellate court found lower court properly granted her motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents

AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5519060 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: On defendant?s appeal of lower court?s order requiring production of his iphone to opposing counsel for counsel?s review, appellate court found the order too broad and ?tantamount to ordering the production of his computer? and remanded the case with the order that plaintiff produce the iphone to the court for in camera review to identify what if any information was responsive to plaintiff?s discovery request

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: iPhone

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Winchell v. Lopiccolo, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5933033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged brain trauma and impaired cognitive functioning and Defendants therefore sought unfettered access to Plaintiff?s Facebook page ?for the purpose of discovering what it reveals about Plaintiff?s ?ability to portray cognitive function?? (Defendants asserted that even the layout of the page would demonstrate cognitive function), the court denied the motion upon finding the request was overbroad

Nature of Case: Claims related to injuries resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents (Facebook)

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(LBS)(JCF), 2012 Wl 3964742 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed in depth a myriad of important discovery issues (e.g. ?phasing, sampling, and proportionality?); as to the question of reasonable accessibility, court clarified that a showing of undue burden alone is insufficient to establish inaccessibility and that the alleged burden must be ?associated with some technological feature which inhibits accessibility? and, noting that defendant?s databases were not inaccessible because of such a feature, found that rule 26(b)(2)(B) presented ?no barrier? to discovery of the at-issue databases; turning to the question of proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court focused on section (iii) and, after discussing options to lessen Defendant?s burden, including sampling or a ?document dump,? found that most ESI was subject to production for reasons including the importance of the information to the case, the high financial stakes and Defendant?s ?ample resources,? the importance of the issues being litigated, and Defendant?s exaggeration of the burden and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives

Nature of Case: Putative class action asserting gender discrimination by employer

Electronic Data Involved: Database content

In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-md-2233, 2012 WL 4361430 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a number of discovery issues related to Plaintiffs? motion to compel production and, among other things: 1) ordered production of the parameters of Defendants? searches where evidence indicated the possibility that Defendants made unilateral decisions to limit their search/production, where the parties disputed the meaning of certain search terms, and where the dearth of emails produced ?weighed in favor? of disclosing the search efforts; and 2) ordered defense counsel to certify that they had completed a reasonable inquiry and provided examples of the sort of information that should be included in such a certification

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; search parameters; certification of reasonable inquiry

Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transport, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 492 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that plaintiffs? requests would result in an undue burden in light of the number of defendant?s employees and the number of farm labor contractors with whom it did business (because of the high volume of records) the court concluded that sampling was ?an appropriate method? to relieve defendant?s burden and, recognizing that even sampling would be burdensome, ordered ?a reduced sample? which would nonetheless ?yield meaningful information? and further ordered defendant to perform a random sample of 50% of payroll and timekeeping records for designated months and years ?unless the parties agree to a different sampling method;? Court denied (in part) third-party?s motion to quash where the information sought was relevant and where the third party presented evidence of burden as to production in hard copy but presented no such evidence as to electronic records which the third party indicated it maintained

Nature of Case: Wage and hours class action

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll and timekeeping records, ESI

Howell v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-1014, 2012 WL 5265170 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Plaintiff?s production of her user names and passwords for all social media sites and indicated that Defendants were free to request relevant information from the private portions of Plaintiff?s social media accounts which Plaintiff?s counsel could access and produce and that Plaintiff remained obligated to preserve all relevant information and that if any information had been deleted, Plaintiff?s counsel should advise Defendants? counsel and attempt to recover the deleted data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media (Facebook)

United States v. Warner, No. C 11-04181 LB, 2012 WL 6087193 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the government?s production of all communications between himself and the government, all documents concerning its debt collection policies, and information related to the government?s debt collection efforts related to his debt, the court found that the government?s burden argument was unpersuasive where it lacked specific information to support the claim and where, pursuant to the factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the burden did not outweigh the benefit of the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Student loan debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel