Motion to Compel – Page 78 – Electronic Discovery Law

Maldonado v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2010 WL 1980319 (D. Kan. May 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion for a protective order preventing disclosure of the video of defendant?s train colliding with plaintiffs? car where defendant?s concerns about video manipulation or commercial exploitation was unwarranted and unsupported by evidence beyond speculation; court ordered production of event recorder data for a relevant time period and, because of the need for proprietary software to analyze the data, ordered defendant to either secure permission for plaintiff to utilize the software independently and produce the data and software outright or make the data and software available at a mutually agreeable time and place for plaintiff?s evaluation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from train vs. car collision

Electronic Data Involved: Video of collision & event recorder data and related software

Aponte-Navedo v. Nalcom Chem. Co., 268 F.R.D. 31 (D.P.R. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s first motion to compel, the court found that while information regarding defendant?s information technology department and the hardware and software used by defendant is discoverable, plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and the court could not compel responses to the interrogatories as drafted but ordered defendants to identify the computer program or software used to created or transmit the already produced documents and for defendants to produce native documents with metadata intact

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding defendant’s information technology department, ESI

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

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

Shanahan v. Superior Court, 2010 WL 2840254 (Cal. Ct. App. July 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ruled against waiver as to privileged documents sent from and stored on deceased employee?s work computer where the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the ?unusual circumstances? presented, including that the employee believed he was permitted to communicate with his attorney via his computer because the attorney was paid for by the company for the purpose of negotiating employee?s employment agreement and because of the failure of the employer?s use policy to expressly negate the expectation of privacy by failing to specifically reference waiver of attorney-client privilege, among other reasons; court also ruled that dissemination of a draft memo to the employee?s secretary did not waive privilege where the secretary was assigned to the employee, frequently edited and printed documents for the employee, and understood that such documents were to be kept confidential

Nature of Case: As executor, widow sued husband’s employer for breach of compensation agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails, ESI

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In divorce proceedings, court denied wife?s motion for access to husband?s office hard drive where wife was not entitled to ?unrestricted turnover? of the drive and failed to propose a discover/issue resolution protocol to allow for the protection of privileged and private material but allowed for possible renewal of the motion, which must contain a proper discovery protocol, and provided specific instruction for the proper content of the same

Nature of Case: Matrimonial action/divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Husband’s office hard drive

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 WL 2605855 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had produced millions of pages organized as maintained in the usual course of business, court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to precisely match the documents produced with the request to which they responded, but, citing plaintiff?s ?demonstrated ample resources?, ordered plaintiff to ?generally match up its documents with defendant?s requests by letter, chart, or some form of index? within 14 days; court declined to compel production of metadata that did not exist and ?OCR information? but ordered plaintiff to provide ?custodian information? as to those documents which lacked it

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod. Inc., 2010 WL 3294389 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought production from 10 foreign custodians alleged to be agents of the plaintiff, the court conducted an extensive review of evidence as to each persons? involvement with the plaintiff and the applicable case law from several jurisdictions and found as to 9 of the custodians that they maintained relevant information and that plaintiff exercised sufficient control of that information, in light of the custodian?s significant involvement with plaintiff?s business, that the information should be produced; in so holding, the court rejected plaintiff?s arguments that the discovery sought had already been produced, was not under their control, was cumulative and duplicative, and was unduly costly and burdensome to produce

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failure of tranformer for silicomanganese furnace

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in custody of foreign custodians

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Tag:Motion to Compel