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.
far produced refuted an inference of spoliation. Finding all relevant documents had been produced,<br />
the court further declined to permit a "fishing expedition" of discovery into the plaintiff’s document<br />
preservation actions based on mere speculation.<br />
� Wood v. Capital One Servs., LLC, 2011 WL 2154279 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011). In this debt<br />
collection practices litigation, the plaintiff sought extensive discovery including broad searches <strong>and</strong><br />
production of ESI. Objecting to the requests, the defendants claimed the likely volume to be<br />
generated by the searches would exceed 1,750,000 documents from the respective defendants –<br />
projected to cost over $5 million to process, review <strong>and</strong> produce. Seeking protective orders, the<br />
defendants invoked the rule of proportionality set forth in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). While<br />
acknowledging that some of the documents in question were potentially relevant <strong>and</strong> that the<br />
defendants were large corporations with resources available to finance the discovery effort, the<br />
court determined the marginal relevance of the requests was far outweighed by the burden of<br />
responding <strong>and</strong> the exceedingly modest amount at stake (roughly $1,000). With one narrow<br />
exception, the court granted the defendants’ motions for a protective order <strong>and</strong> denied the plaintiff’s<br />
motion absent an agreement the plaintiff would bear costs of the requested discovery.<br />
� Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing B<strong>and</strong>width, Inc., 2011 WL 1125493 (W.D.N.Y.<br />
Mar. 21, 2011). In this business litigation, the plaintiff sought disclosure of internal e-mails relating<br />
to its breach of contract claim. Opposing the motion, the defendant argued the request was<br />
untimely <strong>and</strong> the information sought was not relevant, responsive or readily accessible. Noting the<br />
duty to supplement production continues even after the discovery period closes, the court found<br />
the requested e-mails were relevant <strong>and</strong> responsive to the plaintiff’s initial document request.<br />
Despite the defendant argument that producing the e-mails would require searching Exchange<br />
databases housed on an external 4 terabyte storage array at a cost of $13,000, the court asserted<br />
that the defendant had a duty to identify sources of information that were not reasonably accessible<br />
in its discovery response <strong>and</strong> rejected its belated arguments regarding burden. Accordingly, the<br />
court determined the defendant’s initial production was incomplete <strong>and</strong> granted the motion to<br />
compel.<br />
� Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigrations <strong>and</strong> Customs Enforcement<br />
Agency, 2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2011). In this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)<br />
litigation, the plaintiffs sought to obtain records in a usable format from four government agencies<br />
that produced electronic text records, e-mails, spreadsheets <strong>and</strong> paper records in an unsearchable<br />
PDF format, stripped of all metadata <strong>and</strong> indiscriminately merged together in one PDF file.<br />
Determining the defendants’ production did not comply with FOIA or Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, Judge<br />
Scheindlin remarked that “regardless of whether FOIA requests are subject to the same rules<br />
governing discovery requests, Rule 34 surely should inform highly experienced litigators as to what<br />
is expected of them when making a document production in the twenty-first century.” Citing Aguilar<br />
v. Immigration <strong>and</strong> Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homel<strong>and</strong><br />
Security, in addition to three state court decisions, Judge Scheindlin held that certain metadata is<br />
“intrinsic” to the electronic record. Accordingly, the Judge determined that parties may no longer<br />
produce a significant collection of static images of ESI without accompanying load files. In addition,<br />
“metadata maintained by the agency as a part of an electronic record is presumptively producible<br />
under FOIA, unless the agency demonstrates that such metadata is not ‘readily reproducible.’“<br />
After ordering a detailed protocol for the defendants’ production <strong>and</strong> specifying the minimum<br />
metadata fields that must be included, the court concluded by commenting that the whole<br />
discovery issue could have been avoided “through cooperation <strong>and</strong> communication.”<br />
37