Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace pages. Noting that recent photographs and
comments on the public portions of the plaintiff’s pages appeared to contradict claims of physical
and emotional distress, the defendant argued it should have access to relevant information in
areas designated as private. The plaintiff countered that allowing access to shielded information
would violate his reasonable expectation of privacy. Rejecting the plaintiff’s argument, the court
noted that no privilege exists in Pennsylvania for non-public social website information and the
"paramount ideal" of pursuing truth favors liberal discovery. Further, the court agreed with the
rationale in McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway Inc. and cited Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., which
held that an individual who voluntarily posts pictures and information on social websites does so
with the intention of sharing, and thus cannot later claim any expectation of privacy, especially
because the privacy policies of Facebook and MySpace disclose that any information posted may
become publicly available at the user’s own risk. Finding a reasonable likelihood that additional
relevant information existed on the non-public portions, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide all
passwords and user names to the defendant, and preserve all existing information.
� Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011).
In this antitrust litigation, the plaintiffs moved to appoint a special master and to review the taxation
of electronic discovery costs awarded to the defendants. Refusing to appoint a special master to
review the reasonableness of the e-discovery costs this late in litigation, the court remarked that its
"understanding that e-discovery has become a necessary and sometimes costly function of civil
litigation" was the only special expertise necessary. Turning to the clerk of court’s taxation of
electronic discovery costs – totaling $143,007.05 and $246,101.41 for the respective defendants –
the court considered the plaintiffs’ objection that the costs were not taxable pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. § 1920. As a matter of first impression for the court, it reviewed the varying case law among
the jurisdictions but noted that since the section’s language was amended in 2008, "no court has
categorically excluded e-discovery costs" under § 1920. Finding that the costs paid to third party
vendors were necessary for highly technical services and not merely for the convenience of the
parties, the court held they were properly taxable to the plaintiffs.
� Susquehanna Commercial Fin. Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1,
2010). In this commercial lending dispute, the defendants requested the plaintiff supplement its
production, fully explain its discovery efforts and allow access to its ESI. The defendants
speculated that the plaintiff failed to produce “hundreds if not thousands of pages” and argued this
failure evidenced either an intentional disregard of discovery obligations or an inadequate effort to
locate and identify responsive materials. Unconvinced the plaintiff’s search of computers and
servers and production of e-mails was adequate, the court directed the plaintiff to undertake further
efforts to locate, identify and produce responsive documents. The court also found that an
agreement between prior counsel that stipulated all documents would be produced on a disc or in
hard copy could not control the defendants’ ability to discover ESI. Finally, remarking that
communication about discovery and production format that is crucial to this process appears to
have been compromised, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach an agreeable
production schedule.
� Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4138693 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010). In this remanded
employment class action suit, the plaintiffs sought to compel responses to numerous document
requests, production of metadata, disclosure of the defendants’ search methodology and
certification of the defendants’ document retention policies. Following an order from the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, the court granted the motion to compel responses to document requests,
noting the requests sought relevant and admissible information. Turning to the production of
95