Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

argued that it previously produced 14,000 pages of documents, that further review of e-mail would
cost $300,000 and that it should not have to spend additional time and money to produce nonrelevant
documents. Agreeing with the defendant, the court found plaintiff’s discovery requests,
“extraordinarily overbroad.” The court stated that, “mere speculation about relevance,” is not
enough to order production of requested documents. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s
motion.
� Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., 2008 WL 4758678 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 27, 2008). In this securities
litigation, the plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to produce an additional 95,000
documents “hit” by a revised keyword search. The plaintiff argued these documents would most
likely have been produced had the defendant understood the list of “Search Term Revisions”
supplied by the plaintiff to be supplemental rather than replacing the plaintiff’s previous list of
search terms. The defendant argued it should not have to spend the time and resources to review
and produce the additional documents under the revised search terms since the requested
documents would likely be irrelevant and because it previously produced over one million pages of
documents. Determining the plaintiff failed to meet its burden and show that the documents’ likely
relevance outweighed the review and production costs, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion.
� Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2704859
(N.D.Ohio July 7, 2008). In this breach of contract suit, the plaintiff sought summary judgment on
its spoliation claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in spoliation of electronic
evidence by failing to issue a litigation hold, thereby neglecting to retain relevant evidence as well
as the destruction of relevant hard drive data. The plaintiff argued this failure resulted in the
destruction of potentially relevant data, in addition to destruction of evidence contained on
computer hard drives. The court found no direct evidence that the defendant deleted data with an
intent to avoid disclosure to the plaintiff. Determining a genuine dispute of material fact to exist
regarding intent with each aspect of the plaintiff’s spoliation claim, the court denied the plaintiff’s
motion.
� Ferron v. Search Cactus, L.L.C., 2008 WL 1902499 (S.D.Ohio April 28, 2008). In this case
involving an alleged violation under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the court ordered a
protocol for viewing the information contained on the plaintiff’s home and office computers. In
considering the protocol, the court identified three categories of information contained on the
plaintiff’s hard drives: confidential personal information, attorney-client privileged information, and
information relating to e-mail and website advertisements. The court ordered the plaintiff’s
computer forensics expert to mirror image the hard drives, removing information deemed personal
and confidential that could not lead to the discovery of relevant information. Additionally, the court
ordered the defendant’s computer forensics expert to meet with the plaintiff to identify for deletion
information that is irrelevant and create a privilege log of any relevant information which is
privileged. Finally, the court ordered both parties to share the costs associated with their chosen
computer forensics expert.
� Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., 2008 WL 668267
(N.D.Ohio Mar. 11, 2008). In this suit alleging breach of a settlement agreement, the plaintiff
sought to amend the complaint to include a claim for spoliation following two years of discovery.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant knowingly destroyed relevant evidence – specifically the
defendant replaced employees’ hard drives days before the plaintiff could make forensic images of
those drives. The defendant argued that a spoliation claim would be futile and cause undue
prejudice. Applying state law for spoliation and appropriate sanctions, the court granted the
plaintiff’s motion and allowed the plaintiff to add a claim of spoliation.
161