Motion to Compel – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

Team Mktg. USA, Corp. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that defendant produce documents ?in the form and in the same order which in each file in which they existed prior to production? and where defendant then produced email in PDF format, the court denied plaintiff?s request to compel reproduction of the emails upon finding that plaintiff?s request did not constitute a request for a particular format and because the documents had already been produced in ?a reasonably usable format?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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

Smith v. James C. Hormel School of the Va. Inst. of Autism, 2010 WL 3702528 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find privilege was waived as the result of a significant delay in identifying withheld privileged communications where defendants were aware that the pro se plaintiffs had consulted with counsel but failed to follow up regarding the existence of privileged communications, where defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, and where the court found no evidence of bad faith, but, noting that one plaintiff was a lawyer and should have known of the disclosure requirements, imposed a monetary sanction equal to defendant?s fees and costs for bringing the motion to compel

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Revello v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4967968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court quashed order directing production of defendant?s source code where, despite claiming misappropriation of its trade secret, plaintiff declined to produce its own source code and thus ?neither identified with reasonable particularity the nature of its claimed trade secret nor established that it exists? and was therefore not entitled to the source code it sought from the defendant

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secret

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Rosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an order addressing several discovery disputes court ordered re-production of information downloaded from relevant Blackberry telephones where defendant produced the requested data in hard copy and where the information was not fully readable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from Blackberry telephones

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

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching based upon having already conducted an initial, agreed-upon keyword search and upon unsubstantiated claims that additional searching would be unduly burdensome regardless of prior efforts, court rejected defendant?s arguments absent a sufficient showing of burden, granted plaintiff?s motion, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement regarding the searches

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2010 WL 3777540 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing numerous discovery issues, the court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered the parties to submit a status report, preferably jointly, proposing a discreet number of proposed custodians and search terms, and to submit a joint-cost sharing agreement ?for the hefty cost of searching electronic files as represented by [defendant] with an accompanying affidavit in support of the anticipated costs?; court reasoned in footnote that ?justice require[ed]? cost sharing in light of the expense of searching electronic files and in light of the amount of documentation already produced by the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lynch v. Int. Assoc. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 2010 WL 5299879 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed it did not regularly maintain the information requested and that to search for such information manually in its database would result in substantial cost, the court found that plaintiff had not shown that the likely results of a search would produce admissible evidence or that such evidence could justify the expense to defendant and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, including plaintiff?s request for the entire database to be produced; where plaintiff?s request ?showed a preference for maintaining functionality but did not specify a format for response? and where the request for Excel format was verbal and occurred after defendant had begun to generate its production in Word format, court found production in Word format was sufficient and that defendant did not convert the information to remove functionality in contravention of Rule 34

Nature of Case: Allegations arising from union’s failure to pursue plaintiff?s grievances following his retirement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Hilton-Rorar v. State and Fed. Commc?ns, Inc., 2010 WL 1486916 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing several questions regarding attorney-client privilege and work product, court stated that ?attachments or other email communications that are not otherwise independently privileged? but are contained within or attached to a privileged email were protected by the privilege where ?the disclosure of those emails would necessarily reveal the substance of a confidential client communication made seeking legal advice? and declined to compel their disclosure or the disclosure of the emails to which they were attached

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Tag:Motion to Compel