Motion to Compel – Page 81 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 WL 5392660 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching and to restore back up tapes where the court determined that plaintiffs? motion was untimely in light of their knowledge of the relevant facts (namely defendants? intention to search the hard drives of a limited number of custodians and not everyone listed on their litigation hold notice and their assertion that backup tapes were inaccessible) and failure to move to compel within the court-established deadline for such motions and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause to justify the belated filing; court also noted plaintiffs? failure to show a likelihood that additional searching would result in the discovery of additional responsive emails

Nature of Case: Class action employment/wage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, backup tapes

Rhea v. Washington Dep?t of Corr., 2010 WL 5395009 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found that defendant had failed to ask all employees with potentially relevant documents to search for and produce them, that some employees who were asked to search had not complied, and that employees who had complied failed to search for documents in all possible locations and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching and production; court granted motion to compel defendants to provide a complete answer to an interrogatory seeking detailed information on steps taken to locate responsive materials and ordered defendant to ?certify that all employees with potentially responsive documents searched all locations where such documents are typically stored in paper or electronic format?

Nature of Case: Claims that defendant refused to provide necessary medical care or accommodate plaintiff’s disability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Herbert v. Baker, 2010 WL 5330050 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court reversed the order of the Magistrate Judge compelling production of certain videotape where defendant presented evidence that the video in question was not responsive to plaintiff?s narrow request; court denied sanctions where different and relevant video was automatically overwritten before the lawsuit was initiated, where plaintiff presented no evidence of defendant?s notice of litigation, and where the lost video was not the only evidence to support plaintiff?s position

Nature of Case: Claims arising from police department’s alleged failure to prevent an intoxicated person from driving which resulted in death

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

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

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

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel non-party to produce email communications which were in the possession of a party to the action but not subject to production because of party agreement: ?This court will not require Motorola to produce e-mail communications that Vizio and LG purposefully decided not to seek in the underlying lawsuit.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Susquehanna Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2012, 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?

Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MVB Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 582641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Answering question of whether inadvertent disclosure of privileged information to testifying expert resulted in waiver of privilege, court ?conclude[ed] that a claim of inadvertent waiver cannot be used to withhold information from opposing counsel once it has found its way into the expert?s hands ? however unintentional that may be.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 WL 597388 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of ESI in native format because the motion was untimely filed but went on to find that defendants? production of ESI in .PDF format was reasonable absent plaintiffs? request for production in native format and that compelling re-production would prejudice defendants where the metadata produced would likely necessitate additional expert involvement and discovery resulting in an adjustment to the case management schedule

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel