Federal Court Decisions Involving Electronic Discovery, December 1 ...

Federal E-Discovery Decisions, December 1, 2006 – July 31, 2009
of the defendant. The defendant first responded with information in .pdf format. After
objection by the plaintiff, the defendant produced the information again as commaseparated
data. That production was again supplemented by the defendant, although the
plaintiff alleged that information was still missing and filed a motion to compel
production in native format. Citing Principle 12 of The Sedona Principles and Williams v.
Sprint/United Management, 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005) for the proposition that the
adequacy of the respondent’s form of production “must be gauged on a case-by-case
basis, according to the specific terms of the request,” the court held that native format
production was not required by Rule 34, and the plaintiff’s third motion to compel
discovery and award costs was denied.
Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24301 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20,
2007). In a civil rights action involving allegations that a city employee had made
anonymous threatening communications, the plaintiff moved to compel inspection of city
computers. The court denied the motion but instructed the city to “preserve everything.”
Shortly thereafter, the hard drive of the city manager’s laptop crashed and was discarded.
The plaintiff moved for default judgment as a spoliation sanction. The court founds that
while sanctions were appropriate, the plaintiff had not established prejudice to justify
spoliation sanctions. The court ordered the city to pay attorneys’ fees and forensic expert
costs, and the costs of a special mater to manage further discovery.
Palgut v. City of Colorado Springs, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91719, 2007 WL 4277564
(D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2007). In an employment discrimination suit against a municipal fire
department, the district judge affirmed the magistrate judges ruling that the plaintiff’s
requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome, and the defendant’s backup tapes were
“not reasonably accessible” within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(2)(B) because the city
lacked the necessary hardware to access the tapes. The court held that appointment of a
computer forensics expert to examine the city’s computer system was unnecessary, as
"without a qualifying reason, plaintiff is no more entitled to access to defendant's
electronic information storage systems than to defendant's warehouses storing paper
documents."
Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79232 (D. Md.
Sept. 30, 2008). In an action for unfair trade practices and Lanham Act violations, the
defendant failed to produce requested electronic discovery, stating that it lost files by
changing servers twice since the start of the litigation and because its email system forces
users to delete or archive emails every 90 days. The court held that the defendant’s failure
to preserve relevant electronic information was “grossly negligent” and did not fall within
Rule 37(e)’s protection for “routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information
system.” However, the plaintiff was unable to establish that its case had been prejudiced
by the defendant’s actions, and the court denied dispositive sanctions for spoliation.
Parkdale America, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America,
Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88820, 2007 WL 4165247 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2007). In
an insurance coverage dispute seeking indemnification for the settlement of private
antitrust actions, the plaintiff provided 550,000 pages of email concerning the
Copyright © 2009, The Sedona Conference ® 63
www.thesedonaconference.org