Motion to Compel – Page 95 – Electronic Discovery Law

Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer, despite plaintiff?s conflicting statements regarding the existence of a contract in 2005 and defendant?s resulting belief that plaintiff created the contract on her computer years later, where court determined the inspection would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiff carried the burden to prove the contract existed in 2005, not defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs

Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails or portions of emails withheld were subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel their production; court?s reasoning included discussion of the propriety of withholding email headers and held that redaction of email headers was proper where such headers provided information including: ?the topic of discussion between certain people, the identities of those people, and the time at which the discussion took place.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

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

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

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

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where respondents argued that the exculpatory information sought was not ?reasonably available? under the relevant section of the case management order because several separate searches would be required in order to access all relevant databases, court stated that respondents appeared to misinterpret the relevant section to require production of ?easily available? information rather than ?reasonably available? information and granted petitioner?s motion to enforce the case management order and to allow searching of the relevant databases pursuant thereto

Electronic Data Involved: Database information accessed through Intellink search tool

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

Tag:Motion to Compel