|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Duty to Produce Electronic Materials
Baird v. Department of the Army, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4070 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2008).
The government failed to provide relevant documents during discovery, thus an administrative board's decision was remanded pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.73(c)(1).
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95629 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007).
Defendants disclosed their policy pertaining to the retention of electronic documents during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which resulted in the court denying Plaintiff's request for further disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3).
Petcou v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13723 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2008).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), the court found the Defendant met its burden to show that deleted email was not reasonably accessible, as the cost of doing so for only one employee would have been approximately $79,000.
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5065 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)..
A non-party objected to a subpoena, however, they failed to do so within the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). The court did order the parties involved to make a good faith attempt to narrow the scope of the subpoena, as it was so broad that it would have required 3 employees of the non-party to search servers for approximately 4 weeks.
Arista Records, Inc. v. Does 1 - 4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85652 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2007).
The court found that a third party university was required to provide information pertaining to 4 people using the university's IP address to share copyrighted music based on the pending changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86639 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007).
Plaintiff produced email documents to Defendant in hard copy format, however, the court ordered Plaintiff to seek assistance to identify the true contents of a specific DVD possessing Plaintiff's email data after Defendant proved that the DVD contained over 4,000 email documents that had not previously been produced.
Christian v. Central Record Service, "Christian II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80027 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 19, 2007).
The court found that it would be unduly burdensome to order Defendant to produce hard copies of deleted email that had been filed amongst several hundred thousand boxes stored by Defendant.
Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64783 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2007).
Defendant was ordered to produce electronic benefits records that were stored by a third party because Defendants could not delegate their duty under ERISA to maintain the data.
Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50621 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007).
A non-party was not required to comply with a discovery request, as there was no evidence linking this company with the Defendant.
Christian v. Central Record Service, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67546 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 11, 2007).
Plaintiff requested electronic discovery, however, based on Defendant's statement that the email Plaintiff utilized while employed by Defendant no longer existed and was not recoverable, the court found that Defendant had complied with Plaintiff's discovery request.
Butler v. Kmart Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61141 (M.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2007).
The court ordered Defendant to perform a thorough search of its computer systems after Defendant failed to describe efforts they claimed to have already taken. Although Plaintiff requested that their expert be permitted to access Defendant's systems, the court did not allow this based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) and the understanding that it does not give the requesting party the right to search the responding party's records.
Hardin v. Belmont Textile Machinery Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57937 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2007).
Defendant subpoenaed access to Plaintiff's home computers based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, however, the court ordered that a Protective Order be in place regarding Plaintiff's non-business information residing on the computers.
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55574 (D. Utah Jul. 30, 2007).
Plaintiffs offered to produce documents and deposition transcripts from databases and were thus not required to produce the actual databases themselves.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52770 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2007).
Plaintiff was not ordered to restore backup tapes at a cost of $80,000 as the court found that the data stored on the backup tapes was not reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49166 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 9, 2007).
Defendant was ordered to produce documents that were not previously produced based on a revised definition of "document" due to the recently amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47287 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2007).
Defendant produced documents in hard copy form however, they were ordered to also produce these documents electronically.
Wimsatt v. Superior Court, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 996 (Cal. Ct. App. June 18, 2007).
The superior court ordered the trial court to issue a protective order that would keep mediation briefs and email concerning mediation confidential.
ATM Exchange, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44492 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2007).
The court ordered a party to verify that it had produced all relevant and responsive electronic data.
Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Does, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41175 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007).
Plaintiff's ex parte application to subpoena an ISP for subscriber activity log files was granted, as the logs contained information regarding individuals who were sharing copyrighted recordings.
Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39605 (D.D.C. June 1, 2007).
Defendant was ordered to produce email from backup tapes due to Defendant's failure to cease the use of an automated program that purged email every 60 days.
Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36308 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007).
Due to a lack of local rules pertaining to electronic discovery in Oklahoma, the court ordered the parties to follow the follow the "Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronic Stored Information" for the District of Kansas.
Rebman v. Follet Higher Education Group, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32601 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007).
Plaintiff filed a discovery request that would require Defendant to search over 200 million sales transactions, however, this motion was denied due to the burdensome nature of the request.
O'Bar v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32497 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007).
Utilizing Rule 26(f), the court ordered both parties to enter into a discovery plan and follow a proposed electronic discovery protocol.
Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31731 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2007).
The court did not order a party to produce email from backup tapes at a cost of $100,000, as it was believed that such email had already been overwritten and could not be recovered.
Ispat Inland, Inc. v. Kemper Environmental, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16718 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2007).
A non-party was subpoenaed to produce document and electronic information; however, they objected based on burden and privilege. The court ordered the non-party to respond to the subpoena as they made only a general objection and did not produce a privilege log.
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, "Frees II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15508 (D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007).
The court, based on strong similarities between Plaintiff's CAD files and a third party's CAD files, allowed for a second tier of discovery from the third party, which included having their computer systems forensically duplicated.
Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, "Ameriwood II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10791 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2007).
Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce electronic documents, however, the court found that the information was not reasonably accessible.
United States v. N.Y. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93920 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006).
The court found that non-privileged attachments to email messages must be produced.
Advante International Corp. v. Mintel Learning Technology,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86334 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006).
Defendant was granted permission to image Plaintiff's computer hard drive after it was identified that email documents produced by Plaintiff were altered.
Reino de Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, "Reino II", 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81415 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006).
Defendants were given permission to seek sanctions against Plaintiff due to Plaintiff's failure to preserve documents.
Jordan v. Dillard's, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72898 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006).
Plaintiff, who was a former employee of Defendant, was ordered to produce email communications with her daughter in which they discussed her employment with Defendant.
In re CV Therapeutics, Inc., Securities Litigation,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63155 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
Defendant identified backup tapes after the conclusion of discovery and performed de-duplication of approximately 400,000 documents and utilized search terms as a compromise between Plaintiff's requirements and Defendant's burden.
United States v. Hudspeth, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21664 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006).
Although a search warrant for business records did not include the computer as a location to be searched, the court found that the warrant did cover the search and seizure of Defendant's business computer. However, a search and seizure of Defendant's home computer without a warrant even though Defendant's wife gave permission was not permissible, as Defendant had previously denied consent for the government to access his home computer.
Peskoff v. Faber, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46372 (D.D.C. Jul. 11, 2006).
Defendant produced email messages in response to Plaintiff's document demand however, there was a two-year gap in the emails that Defendant could not account for. Therefore, the court ordered Defendant to draft an affidavit describing the manner in which electronic data was searched for and produced.
Diepenhorst v. City of Battle Creek, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48551 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 30, 2006).
Defendant moved to compel a forensic examination of Plaintiff's computer, which was denied, as there was no evidence that showed Plaintiff had destroyed evidence or had not met her discovery obligations.
Benson v. St. Joseph Regional Health Center, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28795 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2006).
Defendant's staff made statements under oath that all responsive documents had been produced and, due to the fact that there was no evidence to the contrary, Plaintiff's motion to compel additional discovery was denied.
Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19577 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006).
Defendant was not required to allow Plaintiff to search their computer hard drives, as the Plaintiff could not prove that Defendant had not already produced information contained on the hard drives.
Ispat Inland, Inc. v. Kemper Environmental, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16718 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2007).
A non-party was subpoenaed to produce document and electronic information; however, they objected based on burden and privilege. The court ordered the non-party to respond as they made only a general objection and did not produce a privilege log.
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, "Frees II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15508 (D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007).
The court, based on strong similarities between Plaintiff's CAD files and a third party's CAD files, allowed for a second tier of discovery from the third party, which included forensic imaging of their computer systems.
Bank of America Corp. v. SR International Business Ins. Co., 2006 NCBC LEXIS 17 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2006).
A third party was not required to respond to a subpoena requiring them to produce deleted email from backup tapes due to the burdensome and premature nature of the request.
 View Additional Case Summaries Regarding Duty to Produce Electronic Materials
|
|
|
|
|
|
