Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

and create a more organized and understandable database of electronic documents already
produced. The defendant argued the cost of providing a mirror image database to the plaintiff
would exceed $10,000. The court found the large cost of production did not outweigh the plaintiffs’
interest in having the documents. The court noted, however, the parties could negotiate production
of the database without the court’s assistance if the plaintiffs desired to pay the costs associated
with obtaining the data. In arguing for the native production of e-mails, the plaintiffs claimed the
defendant merely provided “pictures” of the requested e-mails and did not provide them in an easily
searchable format. The court found the plaintiffs’ discovery requests did not specifically ask for the
e-mails in a particular format. The defendant provided documents as asked for in the discovery
requests. Lastly, the plaintiffs argued the production of e-mails and other documents were
“produced as single page documents with no consideration of the organization.” The plaintiffs
requested the electronic documents be provided in an “un-shuffled” manner and produced in a
more easily readable method. Refusing to place such a burden on the defendant, the court ruled
the production followed accepted industry practices and the plaintiffs possessed the capabilities to
organize the produced documents.
� Farmers Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okla. 2003). In a discovery dispute, the district court
ordered the defendant to search insurance claim files for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 and
produce documents containing complaints from Oklahoma insureds on medical payment claims.
The defendant insurer claimed the request was unduly burdensome because to comply, it would
have to manually examine 600,000 closed paper files and 3,300-3,400 electronic files. The
defendant estimated the average examination time per file at 30 minutes. On appeal from the
district court order, the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that the expenditure of time and money to
conduct the search in accordance with the plaintiff’s request would be unduly burdensome on the
defendant. However, the court was hesitant to excuse the defendant from meeting the plaintiff’s
discovery demands noting that the defendants “unilateral decision on how it stores information
cannot, by itself, be a sufficient reason for placing discoverable matter outside the scope of
discovery.” The court ordered the defendant to use a statistical sampling technique that will meet
the trial court’s “muster for integrity of the process and protect both litigants from distortive effects”
to produce discovery.
� York v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31465306 (N.D.Okla. Nov. 4, 2002). In a case
alleging bad faith in processing an insurance claim, the defendant opposed the plaintiff’s 30(b)(6)
deposition request on the subject of the defendant’s use of a claims adjusting software program
called “Colossus.” The court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the “Colossus”
program was proprietary or confidential and ordered that the plaintiff should be given the
opportunity to discover what data was inputted into "Colossus" concerning her claim. The court
also ordered the defendant to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify to the use of the “Colossus”
program. Granting part of the defendant’s motion for a protective order, the court held that the
nature and extent of the defendant’s use of "Colossus" may be confidential and entitled to
protection from third parties.
� United States v. Koch Ind., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okla. 1998). The plaintiffs claimed that the
defendant thwarted discovery attempts by destroying backup computer tapes and files. The court
found that the defendant failed in its duty to preserve evidence that it should have known was
relevant. The court allowed the plaintiffs to inform jury that computer tapes and files were
destroyed but did not allow negative inference.
Utah
283