Motion to Compel – Page 66 – Electronic Discovery Law

Townsend v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., No. 11AP-672, 2012 WL 2467047 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to conduct forensic analysis of defendant?s email and electronic data systems where defendant?s employee admitted to sending a highly relevant email that was never produced and where defendant failed to establish that production ?would incur undue burden or expense?; court?s analysis included consideration of whether deleted emails were discoverable (yes) and the need for a protocol to protect the producing party?s privilege, confidential information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3656454 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a myriad of discovery disputes related to privilege logs, format of production, adequacy of plaintiff?s search for responsive materials, and the adequacy of its responses to defendant?s requests and ruled, among other things, that: plaintiff?s production in PDF was unacceptable and that production must be in native format or in the format requested by defendant and that plaintiff?s counsel?s statements (related to the court by sworn affidavit from defendant) were sufficient to put the adequacy of his compliance with Rule 26(g) in question and require production of plaintiff?s search strategy, including its interaction with counsel; court also compelled responses to a myriad of individual requests and ordered plaintiff to pay 80% of defendant?s fees in bringing this motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Nithiananthan v. Toirac, No. CA2011-09-098, 2012 368332 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that ?a requesting party must demonstrate that the other party has committed a history of discovery violations to the extent that the court finds it necessary to order the invasion of privacy attendant to forensic imaging? and also identified an appropriate forensic imaging protocol; judgment ordering forensic imaging of defendant?s computer was reversed and remanded

Nature of Case: Private Nuisance

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of defendants’ computer

Goldstein v. Colborne Acquisition Co., No. 10 C 6861, 2012 WL 1969369 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: President and owner of corporation waived privileged as to emails on company servers by consenting to the sale of all company assets, including the company?s servers and emails, without asserting his privilege; shareholders/officers of corporation waived privilege as to messages sent from company email where subjective belief that their communications were confidential was not reasonable in light of company?s email policy which claimed ownership of emails on company systems and reserved the right to access them; court?s analysis applied Asia Global Crossing factors, but acknowledged that privilege waiver inquiries require case-by-case analysis

Nature of Case: Claim of fraudulent sale of business to avoid judgment

Electronic Data Involved: Allegedly privileged emails

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)

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

Chen v. New Trend Apparel, No. 11 Civ. 324 (GBD) (MHD), 2012 WL 4784855 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of defendants? computers reasoning that such inspections are granted only under limited circumstances ?when there is reason to believe that a litigant has tampered with the computer or hidden relevant materials despite demand for them in the course of the lawsuit or when the possession or use of the computer is an element of the parties’ claims or defenses? and further reasoning that movants made no showing to justify their request, particularly where certain information they sought had already been provided

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2012 WL 528224 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on search protocol, including the number of custodians and number of search terms and whether ?terms of a sexual nature? should be included as search terms, the court appointed a special master to resolve the dispute, split the costs of the special master (unevenly) between the parties, and ordered that if the number of terms and custodians combined exceeded 40, plaintiff would reimburse 5% of defendant?s e-Discovery compliance costs for each occurrence (e.g., if the final search involved 22 custodians and 25 sites, plaintiffs would be responsible for 25% of defendants? cost [7 x 5%]); because sexual harassment related claims were at issue, ?ESI containing sexual terms is discoverable?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

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

Tag:Motion to Compel