Motion to Compel – Page 73 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Google Litig., No. C 08-03172 RMW (PSG), 2011 WL 6113000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where third party objected to plaintiff?s subpoena as overly broad and burdensome but nevertheless undertook a limited search which resulted in the identification of zero documents, but where plaintiff argued the search was halfhearted and that additional searching was required, the court took notice of objective of the recently adopted Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases and indicated its applicability to third parties and thereafter ordered plaintiff to provide the non-party with five search terms to be utilized in additional searching and that plaintiff would bear the costs of any terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant, ?a small company with 13 employees? who presented evidence that it was not profitable, objected to discovery pursuant to 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) based on an estimated cost of $2,630 to comply with plaintiff?s request (which included, in part, the cost of necessary software to complete the review), the court declined to shift the cost of production but stated that defendant could choose to produce un-reviewed ESI to plaintiff, thus shifting the cost of software necessary for review, but if defendant wished to review the data first, it would bear the costs of doing so

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Millsaps v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., No. 10-84924, 2011 WL 6019220 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in a separate but similar case involving the same plaintiffs? counsel and defendant, defendant was previously prepared to produce the scanned contents of approximately 1300 boxes when the case settled, and where plaintiff in the present case (with the same plaintiffs? counsel) sought production of those documents in his case, and where the disagreement focused on which party should be allowed to search the documents for relevant information (because defendant felt that plaintiff?s search would identify all documents as relevant and plaintiff felt that defendant would not identify relevant documents that were not obviously relevant but nonetheless important), the court ordered the parties to confer to develop search terms and agreed, if necessary, to consider up to 100 disputed terms submitted by the parties

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, asbestos

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy

City of Colton v. Amer. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Affirming the order of the magistrate judge, the Court found that Rule 34 production requirements applied equally to hard copy and ESI, that the Case Management Order did not exempt the parties from the requirements of Rule 34, and that where defendants did not produce ESI as maintained in the usual course of business, they would be required to label their productions to correspond to the categories in the request, or, as offered by plaintiff, could re-produce ESI in native format in lieu of labeling

Nature of Case: CERCLA, RCRA – seeking cleanup costs from owner of property formerly used as ammunition storage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 10-20881-CIV, 2011 WL 1548969 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where 3rd party established the burden of responding to defendant?s subpoena, including that compliance would result in a total cost of approximately $118,000, the court ordered defendant to bear the reasonable cost of the 3rd party?s compliance with the subpoena, subject to the conditions set forth by the court

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09cv1436-BEN (WMc), 2011 WL 2728217 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where target indicated the requested discovery would require the expenditure of approximately 146 hours of employees? time and cost $4,360 and also argued that the requested discovery would invade employees? privacy and was minimally relevant, court found that the burden to Target did not outweigh the likely benefit, rejected defendant?s arguments regarding privacy and relevance, and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Nat?l Assoc. of Music Merchs., Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2121, 2011 WL 6372826 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to re-run searches using commonly used acronyms where defendant had already run search terms that had been agreed upon by the parties and plaintiff had ample opportunity to ask for the abbreviations to be used and where the court determined that he burden of re-searching outweighed the benefit; where plaintiff was willing to bear the cost of ?running the searches and conducting the review in their request,? however, court would permit further search of specified custodians for one specifically identified acronym

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Johnson Electric N. Am., Inc., No. 09-CV-11783, 2011 WL 1002835 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered production of confirmation the locations searched for responsive ESI; production of plaintiff?s backup policies and tracking records; production of plaintiff?s document retention policy; and production of a data map to show the age and location of data on plaintiff?s systems

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to plaintiff’s computer systems

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:1-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2011 WL 5598306 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Reasoning that the litigation holds were not discoverable but that the details surrounding them were, court ordered defendant to produce ?information surrounding the litigation hold? including when defendants learned of claims, when and to whom litigation hold instructions were sent, what categories of information were identified for preservation , etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation holds

Tag:Motion to Compel