Motion to Compel – Page 85 – Electronic Discovery Law

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

In re Motor Fuel Temp. Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959493 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants? objections that searching for pre-2001 paper documents would be overly burdensome and ordered production of boxes potentially containing relevant information, as maintained in the course of business, for inspection and identification of responsive materials to be copied, with no waiver of privilege as to documents determined to be privileged; acknowledging defendant?s burden in searching pre-2001 email where data was not easily accessible because of disparate email systems and back up procedures, court allowed plaintiffs, after reviewing hard copy, to specifically identify email or other ESI for production, if found, but did not order a search of all email; where Shell defendant proved undue burden in physically searching individual stations for responsive data, court limited search to ten locations but declined to find undue burden regarding the search of databases and ordered defendants to search the individual databases of 246 Shell stations for responsive information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from accusations that defendants sold fuel at a specified price without adjusting for temperature expansion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, archived email, databases, ESI

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Plew v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 2009WL 1119414 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion to compel, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that emails sent to and from a non-party could not be protected as work product where email exchanges occurred at the behest of counsel, because of the relevant litigation, and where there was no indication that the communications were likely to be revealed to plaintiff or any other adversary of the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Argus & Assoc. v. Prof?l Benefits Servs., 2009 WL 1297374 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed its inability to timely respond to defendant?s discovery requests was caused by defendant?s failure to provide access to Medi-web website, court rejected claims that defendant had intentionally misled plaintiff but reasoned that defendant?s behavior ?was not exemplary? and that the parties should have addressed the website when developing their discovery plan; court?s order upheld prior evidentiary sanction for late productions of evidence related to claims of breach of duty, but excepted evidence not known to plaintiffs until after accessing Medi-web

Nature of Case: Breach of statutory and contractual duties

Electronic Data Involved: Website

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1227850 (D. Haw. May 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In insurance dispute, where defendant appealed the order of the Magistrate arguing that discovery requests, even as limited by Magistrate?s order, were unreasonable and burdensome in light of need to review thousands of claims without the capability to search electronically, District court ruled that discovery of related claims should be limited to claims from Hawaii and ordered production of such claims from 2003 to present

Nature of Case: Claims of bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored claims information

McGarry v. Becher, 2009 WL 1363456 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that production of data stored in taser units related to the time and number of firings would be unduly burdensome in light of the high number of times the tasers were fired, including test firings required each day, Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the data upon finding that the device stored data related to no more than 585 firings, among other things, and where defendants made no showing that the printing of those entries would be unduly expensive; court ordered plaintiff to bear any cost of printing or downloading the information in excess of $200

Nature of Case: Potential class action regarding use of tasers in county jail

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored in taser related to date and time fired

Infor Global Solutions, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1421576 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed electronic documents could not be located due to changes in the computer system upon merging and because of a lack of back up tapes for the relevant time period, court found that plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for its inability to produce, including explaining what happened to the files that previously existed, stated that plaintiff ?needs to show it has conducted a diligent search for responsive documents? and ordered plaintiffs to conduct further searches for responsive documents

Nature of Case: Recovery of legal expenses

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion to Compel