Motion to Compel – Page 74 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Clark, 345 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court?s order compelling plaintiff?s production of her personal computer and electronic storage devices did not provide sufficient protection for plaintiff?s potentially privileged documents where defendant?s forensic analyst would use search terms such as ?attorney? and ?lawyer? to identify potentially privileged information and, after expressing its confidence that the trial court would vacate its prior order and compel production in a manner that provided adequate protection of privileged information, conditionally granted plaintiff?s petition for mandamus indicating that ?[t]he writ of mandamus shall issue only in the event the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion?

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of personal computer, storage devices

Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.,671 F.3d 726(9th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) applies to foreign citizens and thus precluded Microsoft Corporation from producing a foreign citizen?s emails, which were stored on its server.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on domestic server

Mgmt. Compensation Group Lee, Inc. v. Oklahoma State Univ., No. CIV-11-967-D, 2011 WL 5326262 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where non-party OSU represented that responding to a subpoena seeking 6571 documents would require an expenditure of $1,761.24 and 55 hours of in-house counsel?s time, court found the burden was not so undue as to require protection from compliance and, in so finding, noted OSU?s financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, OSU?s close ties to a party in the case, and the amount in controversy of the underlying litigation (many millions of dollars)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

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

E.E.O.C. v. DHL Express, No. 10 C 6139, 2011 WL 6825516 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where DHL produced ?28,000 spreadsheets worth of information? with an index containing metadata for each spreadsheet and any emails to which the spreadsheets were attached but where plaintiff nonetheless claimed that the burden of sifting through the spreadsheets was unduly onerous and sought to compel production of information to identify each spreadsheet and that defendant organize them according to request, the court noted its authority under Rule 34 to impose requirements ?different from those in the rule? and ordered defendant to identify which request each spreadsheet or group of spreadsheets was responsive to and to provide an explanation for spreadsheets not attached to an email

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Alers v. City of Philadelphia, No. 08-4745, 2011 WL 6000602 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced a privileged memorandum as part of a multi-page document amid more than 2000 pages of document production and where they requested return of the document four days after learning of its disclosure at a deposition (where there was no objection made), the court found that privilege was not waived (despite defendants? choice to attach the memorandum to a publically available motion)

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced memorandum

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

Pac. Coast Steel v. Leany, No. 2:09-cv-2190-KJD-PAL, 2011 WL 4704217 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: [This amended order corrects an omission to the original order, Docket # 335] Where plaintiffs ?simply overlooked? and thus inadvertently produced 3 privileged documents along with 2.3 million other pages, despite conducting ?multiple? privilege reviews and where plaintiff immediately objected to the use of such documents upon their presentation at deposition and thereafter sought their return before the court, the court found that privilege was not waived

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