Motion to Compel – Page 99 – Electronic Discovery Law

Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not demonstrate that focus of the defendants’ search was not reasonably directed toward finding responsive documents, and failed to establish that relevance and necessity of any further discovery into email backup tapes outweighed burden and expense that would ensue, not to mention further delay which would certainly follow, court denied motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on backup tapes

Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff wrongly served Rule 45 subpoena on defendant in attempt to avoid discovery deadline, and subpoena was not limited in terms of time or subject matter but simply requested all emails contained in designated individuals’ in-boxes as of a particular date, and defendant set forth detailed account of burden and specific estimate of staff hours and cost that would be expended to comply with subpoena, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s compliance with subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Entire electronic mailboxes of key players

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 WL 508391 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued a number of discovery rulings, among them an order requiring AstraZeneca to produce communications between members of the Benefit/Risk Team for Seroquel; court reasoned: “Given the scope of this litigation, requiring a limited number (even 100) of known individuals to search for significant information is not an undue burden.”

Nature of Case: Drug product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2008 WL 928332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ruled that defendant could recover attorney fees and costs relating to motion to compel and forensic inspection of plaintiff?s computer servers, court denied defendant?s subsequent request for $944,902 in attorneys? fees and instead awarded $105,000 as reasonable amount of attorneys? fees incurred; court further ordered plaintiff to pay neutral computer expert only for fees directly related to forensic inspection and not for those related to defendant’s advocacy in the action

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Computer servers

Baird v. Dept. of the Army, 517 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that administrative judge abused his discretion in refusing to compel production of relevant email, and given defendant?s ?lax attitude? towards compliance with plaintiff?s discovery requests, court vacated final decision of Board and remanded case to Board, to be remanded to administrative law judge with directions to order defendant to promptly produce all relevant emails and to assure that all relevant personnel either had already, or will promptly, produce all relevant emails; if such production of email resulted in further evidence to support Baird’s theory, administrative judge to afford Baird another hearing

Nature of Case: Civilian employee at Army hospital sought review of Merit Systems Protection Board final decision sustaining her termination for having failed random drug test

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where source code had probative value and would be covered by protective order, court ordered defendant to produce it and suggested that parties coordinate to limit its disclosure to only specified experts and individuals at Metavante with requisite technical expertise needed to effectively evaluate the source code

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Resolving a number of discovery issues, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails and other stored electronic data concerning plaintiff, stating: ?Plaintiff’s bald assertion that there must be more e-mails than the 100 already produced is not persuasive to the court.?

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel