Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack
Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack
Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
the defendant failed to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the state bar or that any of the seized<br />
evidence was exculpatory or material.<br />
� Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612 (C.D.Cal. 2005). A former county jail detainee filed a motion for<br />
fees <strong>and</strong> costs, claiming the county failed to produce computer-based records relating to an overdetention<br />
claim. Despite persistent questioning by the court <strong>and</strong> orders requiring the county to<br />
provide the requested information, the county did not inform the court or the plaintiff about the<br />
computer-based records for nearly nine months. In its defense, the county argued the plaintiff did<br />
not make a good faith effort to narrow the scope of its discovery request. The court rejected this<br />
argument <strong>and</strong> stated production would not have occurred absent court intervention, even if the<br />
plaintiff had acted in good faith. The court awarded $54,375 in attorney fees <strong>and</strong> costs <strong>and</strong><br />
declared the “plaintiff’s efforts to obtain discovery … were unduly complicated <strong>and</strong> extraordinarily<br />
delayed by the failure of the county <strong>and</strong>/or its counsel to investigate promptly <strong>and</strong> effectively the<br />
records available, both in hard-copy <strong>and</strong> computer-based formats, regarding such over-detentions.”<br />
� Icu Med., Inc. v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 2005 WL 151927 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 4, 2005). The defendant<br />
sought an order compelling the plaintiff to adequately search for <strong>and</strong> produce all non-privileged<br />
documents. Upon reviewing information submitted by the parties, the magistrate judge ordered the<br />
plaintiff to search “all computerized files, e-mails, voice mails, work files, desk files, calendars <strong>and</strong><br />
diaries, <strong>and</strong> any other locations <strong>and</strong> sources if materials of the type to be produced might plausibly<br />
be expected to be found there.” The magistrate also ordered the plaintiff to produce all nonprivileged<br />
documents, along with a written list setting forth each specific source <strong>and</strong> location<br />
searched as well as the individuals conducting the search <strong>and</strong> their areas of search responsibility.<br />
In addition, the plaintiff was to provide a list describing the specific source for each produced item<br />
<strong>and</strong> a list of items withheld on the basis of privilege. The magistrate further required the plaintiff to<br />
confirm it had searched all locations potentially containing this material <strong>and</strong> produced all nonprivileged<br />
documents.<br />
� United States v. Conte, 2004 WL 2988567 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 28, 2004). In an investigation relating to<br />
suspicions that the defendants supplied athletes with illegal performance-enhancing drugs, a<br />
magistrate judge issued search warrants permitting the government to search Yahoo! <strong>and</strong> AOL email<br />
accounts allegedly used by the defendants <strong>and</strong> a drug company. The defendants challenged<br />
these warrants <strong>and</strong> a warrant permitting seizure of e-mail correspondence with athletes, claiming<br />
the warrants were stale, overbroad <strong>and</strong> lacked probable cause. Concluding it was likely the e-mail<br />
accounts would contain e-mails relating to the distribution of the drugs, the court found probable<br />
cause existed for issuing the warrants. The court also declared the warrants were not stale since<br />
the e-mail accounts were used recently. In addition, the court found the warrants were not<br />
overbroad because they did not permit the seizure of all e-mails in the accounts. Rather, the<br />
warrants only permitted seizure of e-mails that were restricted to financial matters <strong>and</strong><br />
performance-enhancing drugs.<br />
� Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 21 Cal.<br />
Rptr. 3d. 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). Alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary<br />
duty, <strong>and</strong> unfair competition claims, the plaintiff moved for production of relevant evidence<br />
contained on more than 800 backup tapes <strong>and</strong> asked that the defendant bear the costs of<br />
retrieving the data. The defendant objected, claiming undue burden <strong>and</strong> expense. The defendant<br />
also revealed that some of the tapes had become obsolete, making the data accessible only<br />
through the use of specialized tools. The plaintiff contended that it should not be penalized<br />
because the defendant chose to keep records in a format difficult for retrieval. Without comment,<br />
explanation or suggestion of a sampling protocol, the trial court ordered the defendant to produce<br />
246