Motion to Compel – Page 91 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 997268 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants believed plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant electronic documents and later learned of plaintiff?s alleged failure to adequately search for such documents, court denied defendant?s motion to compel where defendants failed to bring the motion until after the close of discovery and failed to raise the issue at several pre-trial conferences and where plaintiff affirmatively represented it had produced all responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sanders v. Kohler, 2009 WL 4067265 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape

Tag:Motion to Compel