Motion to Compel – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng?g & Constr., Inc. 2009 WL 2982901 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel upon finding that defendant ?did not timely comply with its discovery obligations? including failing to timely produce a hard drive, a laptop computer, and other relevant documents and failing to produce a privilege log, among other things, and ordered defendant to produce all relevant ESI and to provide additional information regarding the location and collection of additional ESI, including the identification of sources no longer available; court deferred ruling on alleged spoliation but awarded plaintiff $17,375.00 in attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Beyer v. Medico Ins. Group, 2009 WL 3817211 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed responding to discovery would require searching 200,000 claim files but where court determined defendant could sort claims files using specific codes, court found defendant?s assertions ?disingenuous? and ordered production of the requested files; where defendant claimed search remained unduly burdensome because of need to convert certain files to allow text searching, court reasoned that ?the fact that answering [request for relevant discovery] will be burdensome and expensive is not in itself a reason for the court?s refusing to order discovery which is otherwise appropriate? and ordered the production of all documents describing defendant?s electronic means of searching and all software used during the relevant timeframe (as requested by plaintiff) if defendant persisted in claiming an inability to search electronically as a basis for refusing to answer discovery

Nature of Case: Bad faith denial of insurance claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files

Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants could not produce a requested email because of damage to author?s and recipient?s computers but where defendants undertook significant effort to search for the email, including a search by the county?s Information Technology Director and inquiry to the County?s email provider about the email?s availability, and where defendant offered to make the author?s computer available for inspection at plaintiff?s expense, court declined plaintiff?s request to ?shift the cost of an independent computer expert? to defendants and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the email

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ayers Oil Co. v. Am. Bus. Brokers, Inc., 2009 WL 4725297 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where a party to the litigation forwarded an email from his attorney to a third party, the court ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because there was no shared legal interest between the litigant and the third party and thus the common interest doctrine did not apply but held that the protection provided by the work product doctrine had not been waived where the email was forwarded to ?a nonadversary third party? and where there was no basis for finding it likely that the third party would not keep the email confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Swendra v. Comm?r Pub. Safety, 2009 WL 660770 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion in denying defendant?s motion for discovery of Intoxilyzer 500 EN source code where defendant stipulated that test was administered properly and appeared to be in working order and where production would be unduly burdensome absent a showing of relevance beyond speculation

Nature of Case: Driver’s license revocation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of Am., 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Emails sent to co-workers to recruit them as co-plaintiffs not protected by the work product doctrine where plaintiff merely assumed co-workers would keep his communications secret but where court found that sending emails to employees of a corporation increased the likelihood that the material would reach others within the corporation and thus ruled that plaintiff forfeited the protection by using the work product ?in such a way that they may end up in the hands of [his]adversary;? where plaintiff sent emails to attorney family members and copied his non-lawyer sister or another relative, court ruled emails were protected by work product doctrine because material was prepared in anticipation of litigation and sharing with relatives ?did not significantly increase the likelihood that [defendant] would obtain private information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Feig v. The Apple Org.., 2009 WL 1515506 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that identifying responsive employee emails was too burdensome in light of inability to search emails electronically, court found defendant had not satisfactorily established inability to search and ordered production of requested emails; court acknowledged that if defendant established the inability to search electronically, identifying requested emails would be overly burdensome and, in the event searching was truly impossible, ordered defendants to move for a protective order supported by an affidavit of a forensic expert providing an explanation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Newman v. Borders, 257 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent did not have sufficient knowledge of defendant?s document and email retention policies or how searches of its electronically stored information were conducted and where the parties could not reach agreement regarding the proper disclosure or production of such information, court denied plaintiff?s request to take additional depositions and ordered defendant to submit an affidavit responding to nine questions crafted by the court aimed at disclosing the disputed information

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information about email and document retention and seach methodology

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

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion to Compel