Motion to Compel – Page 77 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Read v. Teton Springs Golf & Casting Club, LLC, 2010 WL 2697596 (D. Idaho July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant attached to a motion an email not previously produced and where plaintiff thereafter sought an explanation for the source of the email, access to defendant?s hard drives, and sanctions, the court found defendant had responded to discovery in good faith but ordered defendant to identify the source of the email at issue and all other hard drives containing responsive documents in its possession; where a custodian represented his hard drive had been replaced in 2006, but produced no email prior to 2007, court (without suggesting misconduct) ordered production of his hard drive to be mirrored

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the manner in which Defendants marketed and sold their properties

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives

Romero v. Allstate, 2010 WL 4138693 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for production of documents in native format and rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs must show a ?particularized need? for metadata where ?multiple courts? have held the burden falls to the objecting party to establish hardship or expense and where defendants failed to show how such a production would negatively impact them and noted that were such a showing necessary, plaintiff would have satisfied it; court ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the search terms, additional custodians, and other ?essential details about [defendants?] search methodology? going forward but declined to compel defendant to disclosure the methods utilized for past searching where such an order would result in undue burden to defendants; court declined to compel defendants to certify that they had complied with their discovery obligations absent evidence of spoliation

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Squeo v. The Norwalk Hosp. Assoc., 2010 WL 5573755 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs brought claims related to their son?s suicide and objected to defendants? request for production of their computer for forensic examination following their admission that their son had rarely used their computer for purposes of checking his email, the court ruled the order sought by defendants was ?too broad? because it was unlimited as to time or subject matter and because defendants failed to show that anything stored on the computer would actually be relevant to the case

Nature of Case: Claims arising from son’s suicide following discharge from the hospital

Electronic Data Involved: Parent’s computer

Chevron Corp. v. Stratus Consulting, Inc., 2010 WL 3489922 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted petitioner?s motion to compel production of subpoenaed information in native format, including re-production of materials already produced in .pdf format, where, despite respondent?s objections, the court determined the underlying metadata could be probative, but ordered petitioner to bear the cost where the subpoena had been ?less than clear? regarding the format of production and where respondents? claims of undue burden ?carrie[d] some legitimacy?; court?s opinion acknowledged respondent?s argument regarding the inability to Bates stamp native documents and ordered that the documents be Bates-stamped ?only as technologically possible?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court upheld sanction precluding defendant from presenting evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for non-promotion upon a prima facie showing of disparate treatment where defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive paper documents, despite a court order to do so, including providing ?ambiguous and deficient? search instructions to employees; failing to follow up when employees failed to uncover responsive information; and failing to credibly explain defendant?s search efforts, and where the Magistrate Judge properly concluded the sanction was proportional to the offense(s)

Nature of Case: Putative class action for discriminatory non-promotion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 WL 4806966 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Citing plaintiff?s failure to raise the issue of electronic discovery at the discovery conference, her failure to request ESI in discovery, and the lack of hardship in reviewing hard copy produced by defendants, the court generally denied plaintiff?s request to compel production of ESI in native format but, as to an evaluation of plaintiff, the court compelled the production of metadata and reasoned that the revelation of the date created and whether it was modified could be pivotal for the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tran v. Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 5376348 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant produced emails in ?approximate-date order,? the court ?agree[d] with Defendants? disjunctive reading of ?or? within Rule 34 that producing documents either in the method kept during the ordinary course of business or organized and labeled into categories corresponding with the request is sufficient to satisfy the rule? and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production according to separate email accounts

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Smith v. Mpire Holdings, LLC v. 2010 WL 3294184 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendants to sign releases authorizing ISPs to disclose ?all account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains? where ?given the nature of the transactions? at issue, such information would be likely to involve the confidential matters of numerous third parties and where the court was unable to protect those parties from ?unauthorized disclosure of their confidential records and information?; court analysis included finding that defendants had control of the electronic information in the custody of the ISPs ?because, according to federal statute, they may consent to grant access to their information?

Electronic Data Involved: All account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains

Tag:Motion to Compel