|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Duty to Produce Electronic Materials (Continued)
Pritchard v. County of Erie, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74356 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2006).
Plaintiff requested that the court provide supervision of a deposition of Defendant's former attorney, however, this request was denied.
Friedman v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7588 (Cal. App. Aug. 29, 2006).
Third parties were subpoenaed to review approximately 1 million emails, however, the trial court's orders were found to be overbroad and based on an unrealistic estimate that the review of these documents would only take approximately 10 hours.
First National of Nebraska, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53881 (D. Neb. Jul. 26, 2006).
The court granted an ex parte order allowing Plaintiff to conduct discovery of ISP accounts to identify Defendants involved in a phishing scam.
FTC v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13687 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006).
The court ordered a third party to grant Google, Inc. permission to produce email from his Google account, based on the fact that the third party would be able to withhold privileged documents.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. v. Whitesell Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7079 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2006).
Although the court found that a non-party acted in bad faith, it did not result in defendant's computer forensic expert being permitted to examine the non-party's computer system.
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4407 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006).
Plaintiff requested an order to prevent the destruction of evidence, although there was no evidence that potentially relevant documents were destroyed. However, the court ordered defendant to respond to a questionnaire regarding their document retention, explain the search protocol they utilize, and produce responsive documents.
Quinby v. WESTLB AG, "Quinby II", 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1178 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2006).
Subpoenas that did not take into account the requirement that a discovery request must be limited to relevant material were quashed. The subpoenas had sought all emails sent to or received by plaintiff's personal email accounts, except for emails sent to and from plaintiff's attorneys.
New York v. AMTRAK, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4684 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2006).
The Office of the State Comptroller of New York was determined to be a constitutionally separate agency from the state of New York and was not required to produce email.
Quinby v. Westlb AG, "Quinby I", 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35583 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2005).
Defendant failed to produce email from sources other than backup tapes, as, although it was more costly to produce the email from the backup tapes, they also contained the most complete results. Therefore, the court found that sanctions were not warranted.
In re Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33636 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2005).
The court ordered a "measured" restoration of backup tapes to continue if relevant information was identified and that such information be produced in PDF or TIFF form.
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36195 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2005).
The bank holding company who had legal control of its wholly-owned subsidiaries was ordered to produce documents of its subsidiaries.
In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, "Natural Gas I", 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27470 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005).
The magistrate judge ordered production of documents after plaintiffs showed their need for electronic information that could not be satisfied through means other than to obtain them from non-party publishers of trade data indices and plaintiff offered to pay to assist one of the non-parties in responding to the subpoenas.
United States ex rel Tyson v. Amerigroup Ill., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24929 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2005).
The court found that a non-party who was served a subpoena requiring them to generate email for three employees was unduly burdensome and was quashed, regardless of the fact that the requesting party agreed to pay the costs of production, as the process of reviewing these employees' email would take six weeks. In addition, the requesting party had already sought summary judgment.
Innovative Piledriving Products, LLC v. Unisto Oy, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23652 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2005).
The court ordered plaintiff, who alleged that there were no remaining responsive documents that had not been produced, to provide an affidavit describing their efforts to identify and extract responsive electronic information that had been automatically deleted.
Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21966 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2005).
Based on the Sedona Principles, the court found that, "the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their meta data intact, unless that party timely objects to production of meta data, the parties agree that the meta data should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order" after it was determined that a party had electronically removed meta data from documents it had been ordered to produce.
Menke v. Broward County School Board, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2005).
An administrative law judge issues an order granting access to the home computer system of a suspended teacher, however, the order was quashed as it prevented the teacher from asserting privilege against self-incrimination and of the teacher's right to privacy, as well as other household members' rights to privacy.
United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36890 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005).
The court did not issue a preservation order to defendant to preserve electronic information for discovery and trial under the False Claims Act, as defendant proved that they had taken reasonable and appropriate actions to preserve evidence after learning of the lawsuit.
In re Crompton Corp. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23002 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2005).
Plaintiff in a state shareholder derivative action was ordered by a federal district court to return 2.5 million pages of electronic discovery that had been provided pursuant to an order of the state court by defendant.
The Public Relations Society of America, Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1155 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2005).
A proceeding seeking pre-action disclosure was denied after plaintiff could not show that an allegedly defamatory email was sent to anyone outside of its board members, thus, a legitimate defamation claim was not established.
BG Real Estate Services, Inc. v. American Equity Insurance Company, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10330 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005).
A computer hard drive was sought during discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) "other data compilations", which was objected against due to privilege. However, the court ruled that if it was found that the hard drive contained non-privileged items that were responsive to other requests for production as to which the objections were not sustained, then those documents must be provided in a usable form.
Jinks-Umstead v. England,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5813 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2005).
Plaintiff claimed in a Title VII Civil Rights action that the Navy discriminated and retaliated against her by removing her supervisory status. After plaintiff presented her case at trial, the Navy produced approximately 1,400 pages reports used to ascertain requirements for support staff that they had previously claimed they no longer had in their possession.
Weiller v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 473 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2005).
Defendant in a class action lawsuit in New York was ordered to preserve documents and data, which defendant's counsel agreed to, however, counsel did not agree to the order based on the fact that defendant had already been subjected to preservation orders in a multi-district federal litigation. However, the New York court determined that federal preservation orders might not provide sufficient protection for the plaintiff in the New York action.
United States v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 2005 WL 273030 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2005).
Defendant did not disclose the complete amount of relevant electronic data so the court granted plaintiff's motion to amend a case management order to extend discovery deadlines.
Bieler v. Amco Ins. Co., 2005 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 759 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Jan. 1, 2005).
The court issued a protective order barring defendant's deposition regarding defendant's attempts to respond to discovery requests, however, the court also ordered defendant to produce documentation relating to the "history" of the electronic documents that they had produced to the plaintiff.
In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
The US government had probable cause that a computer system in a private residence contained evidence of alleged tax fraud, however, the court ordered the government to file a protocol, before the computer system could be seized, establishing the manner in which computer forensics would be performed in a manner in which irrelevant information would not be utilized.
Peter Rosenbaum Photography Corp. v. Otto Doosan Mail Order Ltd., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24292 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2004).
The court ruled that although a party was in bankruptcy, it did not relieve them from responding to a subpoena to produce electronic documents.
Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Brown, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24483 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004).
The federal court found that the discovery order requiring an organization to identify and extract electronic information at a cost of over $4 million did not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" that would outweigh their obligation to not interfere with state proceedings.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, "Judicial Watch I", 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20141 (D.C. October 7, 2004).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, the court held that the DOJ must provide segregable portions of privileged emails.
Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., "Positive Software VI", 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19350 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2004).
A protective order that was established to protect confidential information while an action against a company was pending was violated, as the company continued to use backup copies of licensed software. However, the court did not hold the company in contempt, as it was determined that the protective order was not adequately comprehensible and specific.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beacon Hill Asset Management LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15031 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2004).
By failing to include a document on a privilege log in a timely manner, the court found that the document had to be produced, despite a claim of privilege, as, although the document was not printed before the privilege log's due date, it did not mean that the document did not exist prior to the due date.
Sondker v. Philips Electronics North America, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14477 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 27, 2004).
Based on both Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2) and a local rule, the court denied a motion seeking to strike hard copies of email attachments to an opposition to a summary judgment motion. Opposing counsel had requested all attachments being used as evidence via letter; however, the court found that this act was not a clear enough attempt to resolve issues before filing the motion to strike.
Nicholas v. Wyndham International, Inc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13740 (4th Cir. July 2, 2004).
The district court held that plaintiffs were not required to produce email as it held that the production request was cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.
In re Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4432 (Tex. App., May 18, 2004).
Although a company representative had been ordered during her deposition to provide access to a database, the order was vacated as it did not specify the time, place, or subject matter that the access would be limited, which Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4 requires when requesting production of electronic information.
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S., 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 86 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2004).
The discovery order determines parameters for the production of electronic information, such as methods to designate electronic records as responsive and production of electronic discovery documents.
 View Additional Case Summaries Regarding Duty to Produce Electronic Materials
|
|
|
|
|
|
