Motion to Compel – Page 89 – Electronic Discovery Law

Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Special master recommended granting in part plaintiff?s motion to compel documents withheld as subject to attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine for several reasons, including that the privilege log was incomplete based on plaintiff?s failure to log each message in an email string as a separate and unique document pursuant to Rhoads Industries, Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96404 (E.D.PA.2008); special master noted, ?it would be impossible for the party seeking discovery to challenge a communication or document that he does not know exists?; recommendation includes discussions of attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the common interest privilege

Nature of Case: Violations of Lanham Act, Violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and commercial disparagement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s motion to compel the government to produce documents in nine categories, including compelling the government to provide declarations outlining its search methodology and efforts and finding that the government need not attempt to recover emails that had been overwritten because of undue burden and costs, among other things; court rejected government argument that it had not produced a privilege loge because ?producing such a log would defeat [its] unduly burdensome objections? and ordered an ?adequately detailed privilege log for the responsive documents that it withholds from production?

Nature of Case: Action to recover interest accrued on overpayments of corporate income tax

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found the requested electronic discovery ?not reasonably accessible? due to burden and cost and because the expense of the discovery outweighed the likely benefit and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of relevant emails where defendant stated they had already retrieved and produced all responsive emails from key individuals containing search terms proposed by plaintiff?s counsel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs presented evidence of defendants? discovery violations, including defendants? failure to produce all relevant evidence in its possession and ?using computers to generate records for some plaintiffs ?in a piecemeal fashion??, among other things, court granted plaintiffs motion to compel and also scheduled show cause hearing for defendants to show why the court should not order as a sanction ?that Plaintiffs be permitted, at the expense of [the defendants] and their counsel, to have access to a mirror image, forensic copy of the electronically stored information of [the defendants] in order to search for documents responsive to their production requests?

Nature of Case: Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

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

El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part defendant?s motion to compel production of printouts and electronic information pertaining to defendant from government?s National Crime Information Center Database, court ordered portions of the information likely to lead to weakening of government programs (and other alleged harms) and subject to the law enforcement privilege redacted but for the remaining information to be produced; redactions were dictated by the court upon en camera review

Nature of Case: Abuse of process claim arising from alleged improper detention

Electronic Data Involved: All documents related to plaintiff from the National Crime Information Center Database

Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2009 WL 2413631 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff made a preliminary showing of spoliation, including testimonial evidence from defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent that no one talked to her about creating a litigation hold policy and deposition testimony from defendant?s witness that he didn?t save anything, court ordered the production of defendants litigation hold letters (with information unrelated to the litigation hold redacted); court reasoned that ?if defendants deleted emails that should have been preserved, this was a relevant factor for the court to consider when it decided whether it was prohibitively burdensome or expensive for the Defendants to retrieve its archived emails.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold letter

Tag:Motion to Compel