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 />
the defendants’ hard drives. The court concluded that the defendants must produce the<br />
requested data and documentation, noting that it was inconceivable that such data had not<br />
been retained. Because the defendants caused substantial delays and unnecessary<br />
expenses, the court required them to "provide any additional documents in their custody<br />
and control,” including “not only hard-copy documents, but any electronically stored data<br />
that comes even arguably within the scope of these four categories.” The court reserved<br />
decision on the production of the hard drives until after the electronically stored data was<br />
produced.<br />
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 2008 WL 1956266 (E.D. Va. April 18,<br />
2008). In this qui tam action against State Farm Insurance for improperly shifting certain<br />
Hurricane Katrina damage costs to the federal government, State Farm issued a subpoena<br />
to AOL to obtain e-mail of key witnesses against State Farm. The District Judge,<br />
upholding the Magistrate Judge’s prior ruling, held that the <strong>Electronic</strong> Communications<br />
Privacy Act barred AOL from producing emails in response to this subpoena, and that the<br />
subpoena was overbroad and imposed an undue burden under Rule 45(c), since it<br />
requested all e-mails of the witnesses for a six week period, including private information<br />
unrelated to the litigation.<br />
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76221 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007).<br />
The plaintiff brought suit against a former employee for trade secret misappropriation and<br />
breach of contract. Several days after receiving the complaint, the defendant traveled 20<br />
miles to a construction site dumpster to dispose of his personal computer, later claiming<br />
that the computer had crashed and that he had been told it was beyond repair. The<br />
plaintiff moved for default judgment, sanctions and attorney’s fees. Relying on its<br />
inherent power and Rule 37, the court declined to enter default judgment because the<br />
plaintiff was able to obtain copies of many of the documents that would have been found<br />
on the destroyed computer from third parties, but affirmed the plaintiff’s motion for<br />
sanctions, finding the defendant acted in bad faith. The court ordered the defendant to pay<br />
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with the plaintiff’s motion, third party<br />
discovery, and retention of the computer expert.<br />
Apsley v. Boeing Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5144 (D. Kan. Jan. 17, 2007). In an age<br />
discrimination class action stemming from the sale and downsizing of manufacturing<br />
facilities, the plaintiffs requested extensive searches of the email accounts of up to 550<br />
individuals for terms as broad as "benefit" or "old." The defendant objected on the basis<br />
of overbreadth and burden, citing factors including the undetermined number of email<br />
accounts involved, the geographic spread of the servers and storage devices involved, and<br />
the encryption of many messages. The court ordered a hearing to consider the estimated<br />
cost of the discovery, whether costs should be borne by plaintiffs, and whether there<br />
might be more efficient methods for discovery than key word searches.<br />
Apsley v. Boeing Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5274 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2008) (“Boeing<br />
II”). In an age discrimination case, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for an in<br />
camera review of documents that were withheld by the defendant on privilege grounds,<br />
Copyright © 2009, The Sedona Conference ® 7<br />
www.thesedonaconference.org