Motion to Compel – Page 76 – Electronic Discovery Law

U.S. v. Bortnick, 2010 WL 935482 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the government proposed that expert?s access to hard drive seized from defendant be contingent upon submitting to search of expert?s person and equipment before leaving the Sherriff?s department after each visit, court found the search rendered the drive ?not reasonably available? and ordered the restriction lifted or, if the Sherriff was unwilling or unable to do so, that the drive be made available to defendant?s expert in a ?safe room? at the courthouse under the conditions proposed by defendant

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution related to child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of hard drive seized by police

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered 4 pages of privileged documents be returned to defendants where the pages were privileged on their face and inadvertently produced (4 pages of privileged material were produced among 2000 pages and the documents were subject to review by three attorneys prior to production) and where counsel immediately sought their return upon discovery of their production; court ordered narrowing of search terms and fewer custodians upon defendants? objection to plaintiffs? proposed scope (including 55 custodians and 50 search terms) where plaintiff failed to respond to the objection within the ten day period provided by the court

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged materials

In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where recipient of government subpoenas refused to comply on grounds of unreasonableness and burden, court approved government?s offer to reduce number of custodians from 13 to 3 (out of a workforce of approximately 72,000) and ordered recipient to produce live emails and snapshot of emails from backup tapes for each of the years between 2002 and 2008 which, the court noted, had been preserved for other litigation

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, snapshot of email from backup tapes

In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff primarily responsible for breakdown of discovery for failing to produce requested ESI or to provide satisfactory explanation of the problems precluding production but declined to order exclusion of all evidence supporting ?diminution in value? claim where plaintiff produced substantial financial information and produced the requested ESI in hard copy, where plaintiffs violated no court order, where the failure to produce was temporally limited to two ?short periods of time?, and where plaintiffs apparent ability to produce the requested ESI would prevent any prejudice; court gave defendant option of receiving ESI on ?searchable CD? or receiving the computer on which the ESI was stored for expert examination

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data in electronic format

Gordanier v. Montezuma Water Co., 2010 WL 935665 (D. Colo. Mar. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of ESI from the computer of plaintiff?s supervisor where plaintiff was aware of the existence of the computer and its email capabilities prior to filing suit but nonetheless agreed in the scheduling order that no electronic discovery would be required and thus could not show ?good cause? to amend the order

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from hard drive of plaintiff’s supervisor

Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of non-email ESI in native format where defendant previously produced the information sought in hard copy, reasoning that native production is not required by the rules and that the documents, previously produced in hard copy, were in a sufficiently usable format absent a showing that the metadata would ?yield an answer that the hard copy will not?; court also recognized obligation to seek ?just, speedy, and inexpensive? adjudication and to limit burdensome discovery where defendant represented significant hardship to re-produce in native format

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s dismissal of charges related to defendant?s alleged possession of child pornography where FBI refused to follow the trial court?s order to produce a copy of the relevant hard drive to defendant?s expert, pursuant to the terms of a protective order, and where defendant made a ?substantial showing? that reproduction of the drive was required for the effective investigation of his defense because the FBI?s proffered solution of allowing defendant?s expert to analyze the drive at the FBI?s offices did not properly address defendant?s concerns about the privacy of his expert?s work or the deprivation of the expert?s references and resource which were not available at the proposed location

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to granted motion to compel production of additional source code where plaintiffs offered only speculation regarding the source code?s relevance and thus failed to meet their burden to establish the source code was ?relevant and necessary?, and where plaintiffs? experts had made no effort to review the source code already in their possession

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tag:Motion to Compel