Motion to Compel – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to magistrate judge?s order ?to do what the [Rules] already require in no uncertain terms, and that is to search for the responsive documents and produce them? (where defendant had unilaterally decided not to look for ESI), court rejected defendant?s objections, including her argument of undue burden, where plaintiffs? use of broad language did not automatically render them overbroad and where declarations in support of the alleged burden were ?largely conclusory?, where magistrate?s order (and Federal Rules) did not require futile searching where it was clear no documents would be found (after good faith inquiry), and where defendant offered only speculation that her search would result in ?needless duplication?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rhoades v. Young Women?s Christian Assoc. of Greater Pittsburgh, 2009 WL 3319820 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced 4 privileged documents (among over 1600 total) as the result of an administrative error following a careful review of the documents for production and where defendants sought the return of those document only five days later, court found privilege had not been waived; court found request for ?versions of all emails sent by or to Plaintiff? and several other persons unduly burdensome where the request covered more than seven years of email and did not specify the topics of the information sought

Nature of Case: Violations of Equal Pay Act and Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, Privileged ESI

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 2009 WL 5151745 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s production of 1200 pages ?as they were kept in the normal course of business? was sufficient pursuant to Rule 34 where plaintiff ?identified the document custodians and the range of Bates number for each custodian?s set of documents, along with the date associated with document creation,? where documents were produced in the order they were found on each hard drive, and where email attachments were produced directly following the corresponding email; plaintiff?s failure to arrange emails chronologically was not fatal to plaintiff?s production

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment action, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee admitted to using her personal computer to work from home and plaintiff thereafter sought to compel defendant?s production of that computer, court found that ?plaintiff?s informal request for a forensic copy of [employee?s] personal home computer does not impose upon the defendants the burden of producing property outside its possession and control? and therefore denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s personal computer

Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Surplus Source Group, LLC v. Mid-Am. Engine, 2009 WL 961207 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the need for a third search of defendants? electronically stored information resulted from plaintiffs? delay in providing search terms, court ordered defendants to undertake third search, using terms provided by plaintiffs, but ordered plaintiffs to bear the cost of the third search, up to the amount equal to the second search, reasoning that such an order would essentially result in plaintiffs bearing the cost of the second search which was insufficient because of their delay

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants? alleged failure to split profits from sales of industrial equipment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. Salazar, 2009 WL 1703232 (D.D.C. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: ?Unconvinced? that defendants had not unduly limited the scope of their search for responsive documents, court ordered additional searching but limited the scope of plaintiff?s proposed terms and parameters and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding: an agreeable search methodology consistent with the court?s opinion, the identification of potentially responsive databases and custodians likely to maintain relevant information, and ?a list of search directives? likely to result in the identification of relevant documents

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Infor Global Solutions (MI), Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2390174 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where out of ?an apparent concern about the court imposed deadline,? plaintiff produced electronic documents without review because of technical difficulties opening certain files and emails and where plaintiff informed no one of the difficulties, sought no extension from the court for production, and did not qualify the production with any ?clawback? notice, court found that plaintiff had waived privilege and granted defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel