Motion to Compel – Page 88 – Electronic Discovery Law

Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the burden of searching all possible locations for a mention of plaintiff was overly burdensome in light of plaintiff?s 17 year history with the company and the unlikely possibility that additional relevant information would be discovered and where plaintiff failed to identify with particularity any documents she believed to exist or category of information likely to contain relevant information, among other things, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Bernini, 2009 WL 922471 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court of Appeals found ?[t]he respondent judge erred as a matter of law and abused her discretion in ordering the state to produce source code material for the Intoxilyzer 8000 that it did not possess and had been unable to obtain, without any evidence the state had “better access” than defendants to what CMI maintains are trade secrets? and vacated trial court?s order directing the state to obtain the requested code

Nature of Case: Consolidated appeal of defendants charged with DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Source code of Intoxilyzer 8000

Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms LLC, 2009 WL 2365976 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In unpaid wages case, court ordered production of data from database in native format ?so that the metadata [could] be examined,? where plaintiffs demonstrated a particular need for the information, i.e., the need to determine how workers? pay was calculated; court excused defendants from the need to produce the information in Excel format to the extent the files requested were too large to export

Nature of Case: Unpaid wages

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

Unishippers Global Logistics, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2009 WL 3297817 (D. Utah Oct. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant refused to search custodians? user files, network drives, and individual hard drives for responsive ESI but agreed to search custodians? emails and ?all electronic files that are known to contain non-duplicative information? and where defendant provided plaintiff with affidavit evidence of the unlikelihood of discovering relevant non-duplicative evidence in non-email sources, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?unless and until? plaintiff could provide ?some reasonable basis? to require defendant to image and search all electronic files

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Non-email ESI

Comrie v. Ipsco, 2009 WL 4403364 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants claimed a privileged email was inadvertently produced and thus protected from waiver but failed to support their assertion with facts, court ruled defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the disclosure was inadvertent or that they took reasonable steps to prevent such disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived; court also found that the email fell within the fiduciary exception to privilege

Nature of Case: Claims brought pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to issue a litigation hold, court ordered plaintiff to issue a litigation hold as to those personnel likely to possess discoverable evidence and to file a sworn declaration describing whether any files had been lost, the methods use to determine the existence of such a loss, the extend of the loss, and the nature of the litigation hold placed in response to the present order; court found plaintiff?s production of documents ?problematic? where it failed to organize the production according to Rule 34 and ordered plaintiff to ?amend? its production to comply; acknowledging that ?the identities of those in control of certain documents is information that may be as relevant as the documents? [substance]?, court ordered search and production of President?s documents despite claims that those documents were produced from other custodians

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle Bank Nat?l Ass?n, 2009 WL 2243854 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff filed a motion to compel (or for sanctions) following its discovery that defendant failed to search a number of backup tapes and failed to maintain all tapes which may have contained responsive ESI, court denied the motion upon finding that burden of restoration of the tapes was ?disproportionate to the likely utility of doing so? and because LaSalle had a practice of printing and filing important emails; court also noted the parties? failure to adequately confer regarding the discovery of ESI

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 WL 6509348 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to categorize its production and identify which documents were responsive to which requests where plaintiff and defendant previously agreed that defendant would produce all documents from certain custodians without prior review and where plaintiff therefore could not simultaneously benefit from avoiding the risk that defendant would unilaterally filter out responsive documents while at the same time seeking to have defendant ?provide the kind of classification that plaintiff would have gotten had it made a different choice?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Casual Living Worldwide v. Lane Furniture Idus. Inc., 2009 WL 37162 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce email sent to a foreign supplier despite objection that email was privileged where foreign supplier did not have the required commonality of interest to preserve the privilege i.e., ?a shared legal interest? but rather, only a possible ?common business interest?namely, that the Defendant be allowed to continue to produce the alleged infringing furniture??

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Tag:Motion to Compel