Motion to Compel – Page 69 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Tummins, No. 3:10-00009, 2011 WL 2078107 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of defendant?s hard drive with all child pornography files redacted where the court determined that the likelihood that child pornography would remain on the drive after steps to redact were taken was ?relatively low? and where the government?s inspection accommodations in lieu of production did not provide the statutorily required ?ample opportunity for inspection? where the restrictions on inspection limited the time allowed for inspection and required the forensic examiner to leave his equipment unattended

Nature of Case: Criminal/ possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Greater Lakes Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-11003, 2011 WL 5245141 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant indicated that the requested records were not readily searchable because the information sought was not tracked, that compliance with plaintiffs? request would require manual review of ?hundreds of thousands of claims,? that the claim files were not stored as searchable images, and that the cost of reviewing the claim files could eclipse $100,000, the court concluded that defendant had demonstrated undue burden and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; court also indicated that plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues of discovery where defendant indicated that a third party maintained the information requested but failed to do so and that defendant should not be ?required to engage in labor and resource intensive discovery . . . merely because Plaintiff?s failed to subpoena a third-party . . . .?

Nature of Case: Suit arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay certain charges for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hansen v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00959-TS-DN, 2011 WL 2149770 (D. Utah May 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel forensic imaging of laptop containing responsive information where plaintiff did not elaborate on the ?need? for such imaging but rather just asked for it, where defendant offered to produce the relevant information from the laptop on a thumb drive, and where defendant indicated that the laptop contained both confidential and personal information

Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O?Brien & Gere Eng?rs. Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 WL 6117908 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced 64,350 pages of documents in electronic form without identifying what request the documents were responsive to, the court ordered the parties to cooperate to prepare a load file to assist in defendant?s review and ordered defendant to bear the cost and, where the court agreed with defendants that metadata was an ?important source for the defendants as part of the orderly production? of ESI, the court ordered the parties to cooperate ?in completing the metadata requested by the defendants in an appropriate format? and that ?outside costs, if any, other than copying costs for the metadata [would] also be borne by the defendants?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Harmon v. Lighthouse Capital Funding, Inc. (In re Harmon), 2011 WL 302859 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Providing a detailed explanation of defendant?s and counsel?s discovery abuses, including failing to search for internal emails, ignoring plaintiff?s subpoena, and counsel?s offering of ?evasive and unfounded testimony in an effort to rationalize his inexcusable non-production? of certain relevant (and repeatedly requested) documents, among other things, the court denied defendant?s motion for reconsideration and upheld as a sanction the establishment of a particular fact in plaintiff?s favor, namely that Lighthouse did not establish an escrow account in accord with its obligations under its agreement with plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, bank statements

Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, 2011 WL 579039 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found backup tapes not reasonably accessible in light of the cost of restoration, review and production but granted plaintiff?s motion to compel where plaintiff?s showed ?good cause for some discovery? and held the motion in abeyance until further argument on cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

United States v. AT&T, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01560, 2011 WL 5347178 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)

Nature of Case: DOJ investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Boucher v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. C10-199RAJ, 2011 WL 5299497 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Following discussion of the breadth of original requests and subsequent narrowing of scope, court addressed duty of defendant to produce evidence from third-party who provided defendant with mortgage-related documents and from independent agents and ordered production from those parties where evidence indicated that at least some agents had contractually agreed to produce documents thus evidencing defendant?s control and where provider of mortgage-documents did not object to disclosure

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from third parties

First Tenn. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Republic Mortg. Ins. Co. & Republic Mortg. Ins. Co. of N.C., No. 2:10-cv-02513-JPM-cgc, 2011 WL 6130808 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing the requisite showing to establish undue burden in responding to discovery, the court identified ?several overarching principles to be considered:? 1) that a party must provide ?competent proof demonstrating the burden faced;? 2) that ?the fact that a party maintains its document in a manner than makes access difficult is not an excuse for refusing to produce relevant documents;? and 3) that the court must consider whether the ?claimed hardship is unreasonable in light of the benefits to be secured,? and upon review of the evidence presented, ordered plaintiff to respond to defendants? requests for production

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

M-I LLC v. Stelly, No. H-09-1552, 2015 WL 12896025 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered forensic inspection of Defendant?s computers where Plaintiff presented evidence that an individual defendant had transferred confidential information to USB devices and Plaintiff suspected it had then been transferred to Defendant?s computer systems and where Plaintiff produced evidence of Defendant?s practice of deleting documents; court ordered inspection undertaken by an independent expert

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of computers

Tag:Motion to Compel