Motion to Compel – Page 82 – Electronic Discovery Law

Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where production of defendants? general ledger was necessary because there was no suitable alternative to provide the information, but where defendants? counsel asserted that such production would require ?hundreds of hours? and involve great expense, court noted defendants failure to produce any details in support of its assertion and that plaintiff was willing to bear the reasonable costs and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: General ledger in electronic format

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

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

In re Sawstop Cases, 2010 WL 2483316 (D. Mass. June 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs? production of cartridges containing relevant data (?akin to a ?black box??) that were relied upon by their expert in forming his opinions but found both parties proposed protective measures insufficient and ordered defendants to designate an expert or experts to review the cartridges, restricted access to the cartridges to defendants? expert(s) and counsel and their employees ?whose functions required access to the cartridge or cartridge information?, and ordered that each expert sign an agreement that they would not seek to develop technology similar to that at issue

Electronic Data Involved: Cartridge data “akin to a black box”

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

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

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

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 4337388 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to avoid searching and producing emails and related documents maintained by defendants? CEO and CTO and argued that they had already produced 5.5 million pages and that the information sought was cumulative and therefore imposed an undue burden, the court noted defendants admission that they had not searched or reviewed the materials of the relevant executives and found that plaintiff had shown the likelihood that such a search could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and ordered the executives? materials to be searched and if responsive, produced

Electronic Data Involved: Executives’ ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel