Federal Court Decisions Involving Electronic Discovery, December 1 ...
Federal Court Decisions Involving Electronic Discovery, December 1 ...
Federal Court Decisions Involving Electronic Discovery, December 1 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Federal</strong> E-<strong>Discovery</strong> <strong>Decisions</strong>, <strong>December</strong> 1, 2006 – July 31, 2009<br />
Almarri v. Gates, 2008 WL 4449858 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2008). An enemy combatant held<br />
by the U.S. Navy challenged the conditions of his confinement and sought an order<br />
requiring that the government preserve records, including recordings of his interrogation,<br />
and conduct an inquiry into alleged spoliation. The court denied both requests, finding<br />
that the government was already operating under adequate retention procedures and that<br />
the incidents of data destruction alleged by the plaintiff occurred months before the<br />
litigation was filed.<br />
Am. Fam. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009).<br />
In an employment matter alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, the requesting party<br />
alleged the producing party, a former employee, had retained customer lists and other<br />
information in violation of his contract and applicable laws. The requesting party sought<br />
an <strong>Electronic</strong>ally Stored Information <strong>Discovery</strong> Plan under which it would inspect a<br />
mirror image of the producing party’s hard drive. The court granted the requesting party’s<br />
motion and established a detailed protocol for discovery. The protocol directed that the<br />
producing party should redact privileged data from the hard drive and provide a log of<br />
such data to the requesting party. Additionally, the protocol directed both parties, along<br />
with their forensic experts, to confer and establish search terms. Lastly, the protocol<br />
directed the requesting party to provide the producing party with a Bates-labeled hard<br />
copy of all relevant ESI for review after the search was completed.<br />
American Fast Freight, Inc. v. National Consolidation Distribution, Inc., 2007 WL<br />
3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007). In this breach of contract suit, the plaintiffs moved<br />
to compel discovery of material relevant the defendant’s corporate structure. The<br />
defendant objected, stating that material sought would not lead to the production of<br />
relevant information and that the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit.<br />
While the court found that the breadth of the discovery requests justified the defendant’s<br />
objections and denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, the court ordered production<br />
based on a five factor analysis that included consideration of the needs of the case, the<br />
amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the particular issues on<br />
which discovery was sought, and the importance of the particular material sought.<br />
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al. v. Ringling<br />
Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, et al., C.A. No. 03-2006 (D.D.C. August 5,<br />
2008). In a suit brought by animal rights activists against circus operators, the defendants<br />
deposed the plaintiffs’ star witness for two days, repeatedly asking questions about his<br />
management and preservation of personal email and other electronic files. The plaintiffs’<br />
attorneys objected to the questions on privilege grounds and refused to allow him to<br />
answer. The court ruled that while the privilege questions were close, the questions were<br />
not probative of any relevant issues in the suit, as there were no allegations that the<br />
witness had mishandled or withheld any relevant evidence, and “any further discovery<br />
pertaining to his alleged ‘spoliation’ of e-mails or documents in light of the production of<br />
so many e-mails and other documents … would be ‘unreasonably cumulative or<br />
duplicative,’” citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).<br />
Copyright © 2009, The Sedona Conference ® 5<br />
www.thesedonaconference.org