Motion to Compel – Page 98 – Electronic Discovery Law

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Atmel Corp. v. Authentec Inc., 2008 WL 276393 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s Rule 30(b)(6) designee testified that he did not know whether files of CEO or nine key players had been searched for responsive documents, defendant demonstrated a ?serious question? as to the adequacy of plaintiff?s search and court ordered plaintiff to search email and computers of plaintiff and nine key players and submit declaration(s) from most knowledgeable person(s) detailing the searches performed

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Stating that it was convinced that DuPont was proceeding as fast as it could, given privilege concerns and the sheer bulk of the documents at issue, court denied plaintiffs’ request that DuPont provide a more expedited production of electronic documents

Nature of Case: Tort claims for crop damage allegedly resulting from government’s spraying of herbicide

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Karim v. Natural Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 429627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where computer hard drive was not relevant and material to plaintiff’s ability to return to employment, evidence regarding plaintiff?s employability was ascertainable by other means, and it would be impossible to discern plaintiff?s computer usage beyond the use testified to at deposition given that several members of plaintiff’s household also used the computer, court denied as improperly invasive third-party defendant?s request for a ?clone? of plaintiff’s home computer hard drive

Nature of Case: Injured construction worker sued for violations of New York Labor Law and for common law negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s home computer

Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., 2008 WL 356928 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2008), modified, 2008 WL 724627 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where examination of defendants? hard drives and servers was only way to determine whether defendants had violated court order requiring them to locate any files taken from plaintiffs, return them to plaintiffs, and then purge plaintiffs? files from defendants? electronic storage devices, magistrate judge ordered defendants to produce forensic copies of hard drives and servers to plaintiffs? counsel on a ?Confidential-Designated Counsel Only? basis

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ hard drives and servers

Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to file joint status report describing results of targeted search of defendant’s data backup system with respect to particular witness and stating their respective positions on issue of whether such results warranted further search of data backup system for emails authored by or addressed to other individuals

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

Electronic Data Involved: All emails relating to plaintiff or his compensation generated in past ten years by plaintiff and other Wachovia employees

Peacock v. Merrill, 2008 WL 509636 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants did not have any knowledge of a particular computer disk containing relevant evidence, much less an exact copy of that disk, when they first deposed plaintiff, and plaintiff’s prior sworn statements about the disk were conflicting, court granted defendants? motion for leave to depose plaintiff a second time on the limited issue of her knowledge of the existence of the disk and its contents

Nature of Case: Conversion, interference with business relationships, breach of fiduciary duties and conspiracy claims

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; CD-ROM containing data retrieved from inoperable computer

Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 2008 WL 564725 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Eighth Circuit upheld district court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to have a third-party expert conduct forensic investigation of a City-owned computer to search for relevant emails that might not have been produced in discovery; district court’s findings that City had produced all relevant emails in hard copy and that forensic discovery could expose confidential or privileged materials were not clearly erroneous and in light of that factual premise there was no abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Equal protection and substantive due process claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer of defendant’s employee

Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Second Circuit found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to examine in their entirety numerous computer hard drives belonging to Ogilvy and American Express employees and granting the request only to the extent it involved electronic records pertinent to disputed dates of creation of two documents, since plaintiff failed to show any error in district court’s determination that ?such wholesale rummaging? through American Express’s electronic records was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement and misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of employees of American Express and Ogilvy who worked on a particular ad campaign

Tag:Motion to Compel