Motion to Compel – Page 87 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3443563 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Systs., 2009 WL 4042898 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

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

State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Abuse of discretion for district court to order discovery of source code of Intoxilyzer 500EN absent presentation of evidence on how source code may relate to guilt or innocence; no abuse of discretion for finding that source code was in ?possession or control? of state where state?s response to relevant request for proposal when replacing the previous breath test instrument asserted ownership of copyrighted material (i.e., portions of the source code, as discussed by the court)

Nature of Case: Driving under the influence

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 2009 WL 2136112 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(i) and (ii), court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of plaintiff?s hard drive where defendant admitted that it had not yet exhausted less intrusive or burdensome means of discovering the information sought

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., 2009 WL 2868891 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite the ?clearly burdensome? process required to restore, review and produce the requested ESI, court ordered production of a specific category of ESI, where ?fairness demand[ed]? plaintiff have an opportunity to review? it, but ordered that if plaintiff continued to desire production of the remaining categories ?for which plaintiff ha[d] a lesser need, in light of all of the other discovery in this matter,? plaintiff must pay half the cost

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Assoc. Press v. Canterbury, 688 S.E.2d 317 (W. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that ?a personal email communication made by a public official or public employee, which does not related to the conduct of the public?s business, is not a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA,? West Virginia?s Supreme Court of Appeals reversed in part a lower court ruling compelling the production of five personal emails pursuant to West Virginia?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Nature of Case: Freedom of Information Request (FOIA)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

Tag:Motion to Compel