Motion to Compel – Page 96 – Electronic Discovery Law

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where four privileged emails were produced among 4000 documents (in hard copy), where there was no indication that plaintiff produced the documents intentionally or failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure, and where plaintiff immediately took reasonable steps to rectify the error, court ruled privilege was not waived pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

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

Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where videotape of relevant incident was stored on computer hard drive until the drive became full and then automatically recorded over and where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or that defendants received any request for preservation prior to the automatic function resulting in loss, court found sanctions were not warranted and denied plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of relevant incident

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Mktg. Mgmt., Inc., 2009 WL 3200540 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where request for production was unduly burdensome in light of the cost of production and necessary labor to comply, despite the requesting party?s attempt to narrow the scope, and where the court found the request overly broad and that it sought information irrelevant to the litigation, court declined to compel production in response to the particular request, but granted in part other portions of the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no attorney-client privilege protection preventing production of employee’s email write up of an accident where Illinois law makes clear that ?employees who supply only the factual bases upon which the decisionmakers predicate their opinions? are not within the protected ?control group? pursuant to the relevant legal test and the communication was therefore not privileged; court also found no protection in the work product doctrine where the write up was generated in the usual course of business and was not of a ?legal nature? and ?primarily concerned with legal assistance?

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s email description of accident

Tag:Motion to Compel