Close
Enter your
text here

Case Law

Plaintiff Requests His Entire PST File, Court Says No: eDiscovery Case Law

In Russell v. Kiewit Corp., No. 18-2144-KHV (D. Kan. June 4, 2019), Kansas Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel supplemental discovery responses by the seven defendants, including the request to receive his entire e-mail personal storage (PST) file, agreeing with the defendants’ contention that the request was overly broad and not proportional.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff alleged he was fired in retaliation for opposing age discrimination, disability discrimination, and FMLA violations in the workplace through his role in the defendant’s human resources department, the parties had several unresolved issues that they could not agree on with regard to discovery.  The defendants proposed that the scope of electronic discovery would run from May 27, 2015 through April 22, 2016 and focus on specifically identified custodians using agreed and limited search terms, but the plaintiff did not agree with those propose limitations.

Among the areas where there were disputes were: 1) plaintiff’s email, where the plaintiff moved to compel defendants to produce the e-mail file from his entire employment with defendants as a PST file; 2) the scope of discovery searches; 3) discovery requests to additional entities beyond the plaintiff’s employer; and 4) the plaintiff’s request for policies related to the HR and IT operations of the defendants for whom plaintiff was not an employee.  The parties did resolve their dispute over production of the data from plaintiff’s company-issued iPhone.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to production of the plaintiff’s PST file, the plaintiff argued that the defendants had an unfair advantage by having access to e-mails that the plaintiff could not access, also arguing that it was proportional to allow him to “see all emails in context maintained in his own email folders” because it “equalizes access.”  The defendants argued the plaintiff’s request was overly broad and not proportional, asserting they had searched for all terms requested by plaintiff, as well as many additional search terms not requested by plaintiff, and produced all responsive e-mails.

With regard to this dispute, Judge O’Hara stated: “The court agrees with defendants. Rule 26(b)(3)(c) relates to a party’s ‘own previous statement about the action or its subject matter.’ To the extent plaintiff seeks his own e-mails related to this action, those were captured in the e-mails defendants produced in response to plaintiff’s search terms, plus the additional terms defendants searched…Conspicuously, plaintiff has not cited any authority for the proposition that Rule 26(b)(3)(C) requires the production of all statements plaintiff has ever made in an e-mail about any subject, such that his entire e-mail file during his tenure with Kiewit Energy must be produced.

Although plaintiff is entitled to request the production of files in .pst format, which are ‘generally associated with the Microsoft Outlook email program,’ Document Request No. 29 seeks the entire file for the ‘email account assigned to plaintiff during his employment with defendants.’  Plaintiff purports to address the ‘proportionality standpoint’ by arguing the .pst file would allow him to more efficiently review the file. But producing the entire PST is ‘simply requesting discovery regardless of relevancy,’ which most definitely is not the standard under the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b). The language in Document Request No. 29 is not tied to plaintiff’s protected activity or his employment with the company; rather, plaintiff requests the entire e-mail account during the entire length of his employment. That request is facially overly broad and not proportional. Plaintiff has not shown how every e-mail he has sent and received is relevant to this action, particularly in light of defendants’ production of 775 documents from e-mail searches.  The court sustains defendants’ objection to Document Request No. 29.”

Judge O’Hara also found that “defendants have adequately responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests” and rejected his requests for ESI from other entities, sustaining the defendants’ objection that the requests were overly broad and not proportional.

So, what do you think?  Should a former employee have the right to look at his or her entire email repository in litigation?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules That Privilege Assertion and Potential Fraud Don’t Mix: eDiscovery Case Law

See what I did there?  ;o)

In Gates Corp. v. CRP Indus., Inc., No. 16-cv-01145-KLM (D. Colo. May 21, 2019), Colorado Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix overruled the Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation of Special Master on Gates Corporation’s Motion to Pierce Attorney/Client Privilege and proceeded with the Discovery Master’s recommendation, ordering the defendant to submit for in camera review readable and searchable versions of the documents identified as privileged by the defendant (along with an Excel spreadsheet of the privilege log) to the Special Master for review.

Case Background

This dispute involved whether actions by the defendant (alleged to be “a direct competitor of” the plaintiff) in response to the plaintiff’s inquiry about its former employee’s theft of proprietary information can serve as the basis for invocation of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.  After plaintiff’s counsel notified the defendant of the potential theft of proprietary information by plaintiff’s former and defendant’s then-current employee, Laura Bale (“Bale”), the company eventually commenced an “investigation”, by having a non-lawyer human resources executive perform a keyword search of David Hirschhorn’s (“Hirschhorn”) emails, Bale’s supervisor throughout her employment with the defendant.  That search “did not find any evidence that [Hirschhorn] had received any proprietary information from Bale.”

As noted by Judge Mix in her recount of the facts “it is now undisputed that this conclusion [that Hirschhorn did not “receive” any of Plaintiff’s proprietary information from Bale] was incorrect.”  The defendant acknowledged that Hirschhorn subsequently admitted to the FBI that he received and opened the file containing Plaintiff’s confidential information, and the defendant had made no argument that Hirschhorn lied to the FBI.  Bale subsequently testified under oath that Hirschhorn knew about her possession of the plaintiff’s proprietary database approximately six months after she started working for the defendant, long before the “investigation” began. Despite Bale’s compromised credibility, her testimony in this regard had been amply confirmed by other evidence.

In objecting to the Discovery Master’s report, the defendant contended:

  1. That because Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter about the alleged theft “implicated Bale alone, [Defendant] reasonably focused its investigation on Bale, who worked off of her own laptop and used a personal email address, instead of launching a company-wide investigation”;
  2. That Hirschhorn did not admit any knowledge of wrongdoing at the time of the investigation and that the company only learned several years later that he received and opened the file containing Plaintiff’s confidential information;
  3. That the Discovery Master erroneously recognized mere spoliation as a “crime” or “fraud” which triggers the exception; and
  4. That the Discovery Master took it upon himself to find a basis for application of the crime-fraud exception on grounds not asserted by Plaintiff.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s contentions, Judge Mix responded as follows:

  1. Noting that Bale “was not a solitary or isolated employee” and that “her work contemplated and required frequent interactions with other company employees”, Judge Mix stated that “I cannot agree that so limiting the investigation was reasonable or prudent.”
  2. Judge Mix noted that “if Defendant were correct, corporate parties to litigation could avoid scrutiny of their attorney-client communications by simply contending that although some employees did bad things, the wrongdoers neither admitted it to select company representatives nor did those representatives otherwise find out about it, so the crime-fraud exception does not apply.” She indicated that “argument flies in the face of long-standing precedent holding that corporate agents’ acts are attributable to the corporate entity.”
  3. Judge Mix observed that “spoliation can occur as a result of mere negligence or intentional destruction of evidence, so to the extent that the Discovery Master concluded that intentional spoliation supports application of the crime-fraud exception, his conclusion is not inconsistent with the intent requirement of the doctrine.” She also stated that “the Court need not decide whether Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of intentional spoliation to invoke the crime-fraud exception, as the evidence of fraudulent concealment discussed above is a sufficient basis to do so.”
  4. Agreeing with the plaintiff’s contention that it actually did raise the issues discussed in the Discovery Master’s Order, Judge Mix pointed out that “Defendant itself concluded, in responding to Plaintiff’s Motion [#88], that Plaintiff was ‘insinuat[ing] that [Defendant] engaged in spoliation of materials relevant to this action.’”

As a result, Judge Mix overruled the Defendant’s Objection to the Discovery Master’s recommendation, ordering the defendant to submit its identified privileged documents for in camera review.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have have been forced to turn over the documents it identified as privileged?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Simon Says – Once, Twice, Three Times a Spoliator: eDiscovery Case Law

OK, it’s not as catchy as Lionel Ritchie’s hit song, but it’s funny. :o)

In Univ. Accounting Serv., LLC v. Schulton, No. 3:18-cv-1486-SI (D. Or. June 7, 2019), Oregon District Judge Michael H. Simon granted in part the plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions Against Defendant Ethan Schulton, finding that the defendant “acted with the intent to deprive” the plaintiff of information that he deleted, but granted the plaintiff’s alternative motion for lesser sanctions, choosing to provide the jury with a permissive inference spoliation instruction against the defendant instead of case termination sanctions.

Case Background

In this dispute over a software platform provided to the plaintiff, named defendant Ethan Schulton was the lead software developer and chief architect of the software platform.  According to the plaintiff, in February 2016, named defendant ScholarChip told the plaintiff it would have to pay substantially higher fees if it wanted to continue using the software platform it developed.  In March 2016, Schulton recognized the possibility that the plaintiff might bring a lawsuit by asking ScholarChip’s CEO and CTO about giving the plaintiff the source code to avoid a lawsuit.  The following month, Schulton sent an email to his legal counsel, and copied others within ScholarChip, about forming a new legal entity.  The situation between the parties continued to deteriorate over the next several months, with the parties filing lawsuits against each other.

In July 2018, approximately seven months after Schulton voluntarily left ScholarChip’s employment, Schulton sent an email both to the plaintiff and the CTO of ScholarChip, where he announced his intent to create a loan servicing system that would compete directly with the plaintiff. He further said that he would create the system based on knowledge acquired during his 15 years at ScholarChip and added that he would be communicating with and soliciting business from the plaintiff’s customers that he learned about through his work at ScholarChip for the plaintiff.  The next month, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

On March 7, 2018, Schulton accepted service of a deposition and document subpoena to which he responded: “I left ScholarChip with nothing but the knowledge gained over 15 years of employment. To use definitions from my recent document subpoena, I have no ‘CLIENT DATA,’ ‘DELIVERABLES,’ ‘SOFTWARE,’ or ‘WORK PRODUCT.’”

Despite that, as the opinion noted, Schulton had previously acknowledged that he used a “mechanism called Take Out” to export his entire ScholarChip e-mail account, which included all of its contents dating back to 2014, to Schulton’s personal “One Drive” cloud storage account. He also saved a copy of his ScholarChip email account on his personal computer.  He also saved electronic copies of several webinars with the plaintiff’s clients to his personal computer, which he took with him and kept after he left ScholarChip’s employment.  And, the day before a hearing in August 2018, Schulton located and deleted the file known as UAS’s “Private Client List,” which listed the plaintiff’s clients in descending order by ScholarChip revenue.  In the hearing, he stated “I deleted the file as fast as I could, because I was petrified at its existence, because it’s exactly the type of damning information that UAS wants to catch me with.”

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the information deleted was 1) electronically stored information, 2) that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, 3) (that) is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it and, 4) cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, Judge Simon stated: “These four threshold or predicate conditions have been satisfied” (to impose sanctions).

Judge Simon summed up the spoliation, as follows:

“The Private Client List, the ScholarChip emails, and the webinar recordings are all electronically stored information. In March 2016, Shulton anticipated the possibility of litigation. By June 2017, litigation between UAS and ScholarChip had begun. In the fall of 2017, Schulton downloaded to his personal computer and personal cloud account the electronically stored information at issue. On March 7, 2018, with litigation pending between ScholarChip and UAS in federal court in New York, Schulton received a document subpoena, and his first act of spoliation occurred four days later, on March 11, 2018. Schulton’s second act of spoliation occurred on April 9, 2018. In August 2018, UAS commenced this lawsuit in federal court in Oregon and requested a TRO, which was scheduled for August 22, 2018. The day before the TRO, Schulton committed his third act of spoliation. The Private Client List, the ScholarChip emails, and the webinar recordings all appear to be relevant to the several lawsuits. Accordingly, they should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation. Further, intentionally destroying evidence satisfies the standard for failing to take reasonable steps to preserve that evidence. Finally, UAS has attempted to restore or replace through additional discovery the deleted information but has been unsuccessful. Thus, UAS has satisfied the four threshold elements under Rule 37(e).”

As a result, Judge Simon granted in part the plaintiff’s motion, choosing to provide the jury with a permissive inference spoliation instruction against the defendant instead of case termination sanctions.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendant have received case termination sanctions?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Timeliness and Form Served Arguments; Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law

In Frey v. Minter, No. 4:18-CV-191 (CDL) (M.D. Ga. June 12, 2019), Georgia Chief U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant’s discovery requests were untimely and were not properly served and granted the defendant’s motion to compel against the plaintiff.  With regard to the defendant’s motion to compel against a non-party law firm, Judge Clay ordered that firm to provide the defendant with an estimated cost for responding to the requests, and upon payment of those costs, to produce the documents within twenty-one days.

Case Background

In this defamation case filed by one attorney against another attorney and his client regarding their claims of alleged fraudulent and unethical conduct by the plaintiff as a creditor against a former client, the parties filed a joint case management report, proposing a discovery deadline of January 26, 2019 and agreeing that “all discovery must be commenced in time to be completed before this date.”  The parties also agreed that each party would “timely serve discovery requests so that the rules allow for a response prior to the discovery deadline.”  After the plaintiff appealed several of the Court’s rulings in January 2019 and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court found good cause for an amended scheduling order and instructed the parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling order that included an updated discovery deadline.

The parties agreed to a deadline for motions to compel previously issued discovery requests and the Court initially entered an amended scheduling order that provided for no motions to compel, noting that any discovery motions should have been filed during discovery. However, the defendant sought reconsideration, asserting that the parties had agreed that “no new discovery requests would be issued, but that they could seek Court action on requests that had already been issued.”  The plaintiff opposed the motion for reconsideration, anticipating that the defendant might seek to compel responses to discovery requests that were made on the eve of the discovery deadline.

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration and adopted the deadlines that the parties originally proposed, knowing that any motion to compel would likely relate to discovery requests that were served during discovery, even those that were technically untimely under the Case Management and Scheduling Order.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Clay stated: “Given that the Court had found good cause for an amendment of the scheduling order and had invited the parties to extend all of the deadlines, including the discovery deadline, the Court’s ruling that permitted post-discovery motions to compel likewise included the right to compel responses to any discovery that had been propounded prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline, even if responses to that discovery could not have been made prior to the previous discovery deadline. To hold otherwise would make the Court’s order extending the motion to compel deadline meaningless because there would be no discovery requests that could be compelled. Accordingly, the Court finds that Minter’s motion to compel shall not be denied based upon his failure to serve his discovery requests within the deadline established by the earlier case management order.”

Judge Clay also rejected the plaintiff’s other objection to the motion – that he was not properly served with the requests because he did not consent in writing to service of discovery requests via email.  Noting that the plaintiff had responded to the defendant’s former attorney’s question regarding whether email service to his email address is sufficient for the federal court filings by stating “Yes, this email is good”, Judge Clay stated: “Minter was justified in believing that Frey had consented to service of discovery requests by email. Even if Frey had not so consented, any deficiency in Minter’s service was harmless because it is clear that Frey received the document requests. The Court declines to deny the motion to compel on this ground.”  As a result, the defendant’s motion to compel was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to respond within twenty-one days.

Judge Clay also observed that “Minter also filed a motion to compel against non-party law firm Hunton, contending that the firm failed to respond adequately to his subpoena.”  Noting that “[t]he Court is sensitive about imposing unnecessary costs upon a non-party”, Judge Clay stated that “[t]hat concern can be addressed, however, by requiring Minter to pay for Hunton’s expenses associated with responding to the request.”  As a result, Judge Clay ordered that firm to provide the defendant with an estimated cost for responding to the requests, and upon payment of those costs, to produce the documents within twenty-one days.

So, what do you think?  Should the motion have been denied if they were untimely in the Case Management and Scheduling Order?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Discovery “Cautionary Tale” Leads to Recommendations of Default Judgment Against Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., No. 15 CV 5826 (CBA) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2019), New York Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, noting that the plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions against H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., its principal, Howard Goldman, and its marketing manager and Mr. Goldman’s wife, Lori Goldman (“H&H Defendants”) for wide-scale discovery misconduct “presents a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court” recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion be granted, and that the Court should enter a default judgment against the H&H Defendants.

This case (covered here by Law360, subscription required; report and recommendation linked here) involves trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution and other claims associated with the illegal sale of Abbott’s FreeStyle blood glucose test strips in the US.  Judge Bloom began the report and recommendations document with this statement:

“This motion presents a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court.”

Among the discovery issues according to Judge Bloom (and plaintiff allegations):

  • The documents the H&H defendants originally produced were printed “in hard copy, scanning them all together, and producing them as a single, 1941-page PDF file”;
  • H&H used search terms it knew wouldn’t turn up results (“such as ‘International’ and ‘FreeStyle,’ whereas H&H’s internal systems used item numbers and other abbreviations such as ‘INT’ and ‘INTE’ for International and ‘FRL’ and ‘FSL’ for FreeStyle”) and specifically removed other damning documents – particularly those involving Howard Goldman and Lori Goldman – and provided numerous false excuses for these omissions;
  • The testimony from H&H’s general manager regarding the discovery woes was “clearly inconsistent if not perjured from his deposition” opposing the sanctions motion, Howard Goldman’s testimony was “evasive and self-serving at best” and H&H’s corporate representative’s testimony was “clearly perjured”;
  • “H&H would have gotten away” with its fraud if not for Abbott being allowed to seize H&H’s computers as part of a related counterfeiting case, which allowed previously withheld documents to come to light.

“H&H only complied with the court’s orders and their discovery obligations when their backs were against the wall,” Judge Bloom wrote. “Their email server had been seized. There was no longer an escape from responsibility for their bad faith conduct … But for being caught in a web of irrefutable evidence, H&H would have profited from their misconduct.”

She added that the lies were part of a “calculated pattern of pervasive misconduct that started early on and continued even after defendants were caught red handed,” meaning the case must be ended with a victory handed to Abbott.

H&H had previously been sanctioned for its discovery misconduct, with Judge Bloom in 2018 blocking the supplier from raising attorney-client or work-product privilege defenses for a certain set of discovery production.

Even other companies that Abbott had also sued had gone after H&H and Kerr Russell for letting Goldman listen to remote depositions of other parties, in violation of a protective order.

In recommending that the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions be granted and a default judgment being issued against the H&H defendants, Judge Bloom stated:

“The Court finds that the H&H defendants have committed a fraud upon the court, and that the harshest sanction is warranted. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions should be granted and a default judgment should be entered against H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with the harsh sanction recommendations?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Orders Plaintiff to Share in Discovery Costs of Non-Party: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lotus Indus., LLC v. Archer, No. 2:17-cv-13482 (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2019), Michigan Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti granted in part and denied in part without prejudice non-party City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) motion for protective order in connection with the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents requested by subpoena, ordering the plaintiff to pay some of DDA’s discovery costs, but not as much as DDA requested.

Case Background

In this civil RICO and First Amendment retaliation case associated with redevelopment of property in Detroit, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents requested in his September 2018 subpoena to nonparty DDA in January 2019.  A hearing was held on the plaintiff’s motion on March 26, 2019, after which the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion, ordering DDA to produce, by April 26, 2019, documents responsive to Request Nos. 4-6 of Plaintiff’s subpoena for the November 19, 2016 to present time period, and to produce a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

On April 19, 2019, DDA filed the instant motion for protective order, seeking an extension of time to produce responsive documents and requesting that the plaintiff pay DDA its share of the expenses of production before being obligated to begin to comply with the Court’s order, contending that the volume of potentially responsive documents was substantially larger than anticipated (48.5 GB of data) and would impose a significant expense on DDA to produce and require far more time to complete than allowed by the Court’s order.  DDA initially anticipated the total expense of production at $127,653.00, which included $21,875.00 in costs to upload the data and approximately $105,778.00 in attorney’s fees in connection with a privilege review. DDA requested Plaintiff pay the $21,875 in costs and 25% of the anticipated attorney’s fees ($26,444.50); in response, the plaintiff opposed that motion and questioned why the costs were so high.

At the May 8, 2019 hearing on the motion, the parties agreed on new search terms to further refine the number of responsive documents and the Court scheduled a status conference for May 23, 2019 to discuss the results of that search. On May 22, 2019, DDA submitted a supplemental brief explaining that the revised search yielded 8.5 GB of data that must be reviewed for privilege, at a cost of $2,125.00 to upload the data to counsel’s eDiscovery platform and anticipated costs of $44,705.00 in attorneys’ fees to conduct a privilege review, so it sought an order for the plaintiff to pay DDA $2,125.00 in costs and $11,176.25 in attorneys’ fees (still 25% of the total attorneys’ fees anticipated).

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Patti found that “DDA has sufficiently established that it will be forced to incur $2,125.00 in fixed costs to upload the 8.5 GB of data to its third-party e-discovery platform in order to review it for production, and that it anticipates incurring $44,705 in attorneys’ fees to conduct a privilege review, prepare a privilege log and prepare the non-privileged documents for production.”

He also noted that “DDA has demonstrated that it has no interest in the outcome of this litigation, as it is not a party and Plaintiff’s prior case against it was dismissed as a sanction for Plaintiff’s ‘repeated misrepresentations’ and ‘failures to comply with discovery orders — despite warnings and the imposition of less severe sanctions…While DDA may more readily bear the expense of production than Plaintiff, that factor alone does not dictate that Plaintiff is relieved of the obligation to pay for some of the expense of production, particularly where this litigation has no particularized public importance and considering the ‘unusual circumstances’ in this case, including that Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit against the DDA was dismissed as a sanction, and he and his clients have been at the receiving end of multiple sanction awards in related and unrelated litigation, significant portions of which this particular plaintiff and his counsel have apparently failed to pay…In addition, the subpoena was directed in part at the general counsel for DDA, and Plaintiff should have anticipated that production of documents in response would require a robust privilege review prior to production, especially given the litigation history between Plaintiff and the DDA.”

As a result, DDA’s motion was granted in part and denied in part without prejudice and Judge Patti ordered that:

  1. “Plaintiff must pay to DDA the sum of $4,360.25, which constitutes the $2,125.00 in costs to upload the 8.5 GB of data to DDA’s counsel’s e-discovery platform, and $2,235.25 in attorneys’ fees (5% of the anticipated attorneys’ fees to conduct a privilege review, prepare a privilege log and prepare the non-privileged documents for production).
  2. Plaintiff must deliver the $4,360.25 check payable to City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority (although the check can be delivered to counsel for DDA) on or before 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 3, 2019. Plaintiff shall also promptly certify such payment to the Court, and include a copy of the check.
  3. DDA need not continue further efforts to produce documents until it is paid in full. Once paid, DDA shall have 45 days from that date to produce responsive documents, and a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with the distribution of costs?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

With No Showing of Prejudice, Court Denies Spoliation Sanctions Against Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

In Mafille v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., No. 18-CV-586-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla. May 21, 2019), Oklahoma Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, finding that the plaintiffs “have not demonstrated they have been prejudiced” by the loss of the plaintiff former employee’s work computer, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions “without prejudice to reassertion of the motion if through discovery it is determined that some specific evidence is beyond Plaintiffs’ reach” for the defendant’s “clear failure” to preserve the computer.

Case Background

In this employment discrimination action filed by a former employee of the defendant who was terminated on July 5, 2018 for alleged performance issues, the plaintiff submitted an EEOC charge of discrimination on August 1, 2018 and issued a Right to Sue letter on August 15, 2018.  The plaintiffs commenced the action in October 2018 and the action was removed to federal court in November 2018.  On October 29, 2018, defendant’s counsel sent an email to plaintiffs’ counsel instructing them about plaintiffs’ obligation to preserve data on all electronic media and lectured plaintiffs about their duty to preserve evidence in a subsequent email.

However, an IT supervisor for the defendant stated in his deposition, that (the former employee) Mrs. Mafille’s computer was given to a charitable organization with other retired computers on November 3, 2018 and as a result the data contained on the computer was not preserved and presumably destroyed.  While Mrs. Mafille stated that she was “unaware of the extent of information that might have been on her [work] computer”, the plaintiffs nonetheless asserted that Mrs. Mafille’s workplace computer was willfully and intentionally destroyed, that it may have provided a “treasure trove” of information concerning her work performance over the entire term of her employment, and that as a result the plaintiffs had been irretrievably prejudiced.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge McCarthy stated: “In defense of its failure to preserve the computer, Defendant makes what the court views as an ill-considered assertion that if Plaintiffs had made a request for the computer earlier than they did, the computer could have been pulled and saved…As evidenced by the emails from Defendant’s attorney lecturing Plaintiffs about their obligation to preserve electronically stored evidence, it is abundantly clear that counsel was aware of Defendant’s own responsibility in this regard. The duty to preserve the electronically stored evidence exists independent of a specific request that the evidence be preserved. It is exceedingly poor form, and beyond zealous advocacy, for Defendant to attempt to blame Plaintiffs for its own obvious failing. The court finds that Mrs. Mafille’s work computer should have been preserved and further that Defendant is solely and entirely at fault for failing to take reasonable steps to preserve the computer.”

However, Judge McCarthy also observed that “Defendant asserts that sanctions are not appropriate because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they have been prejudiced by the loss of Mrs. Mafille’s work computer. According to Defendant, a policy was in place requiring that materials be uploaded to Defendant’s LAN Server daily. As a result, there should not have been relevant materials on the subject computer that are not also accessible on the LAN Server. Defendant also asserts that it has requested Plaintiffs to identify what items were on Mrs. Mafille’s computer so an attempt can be made to recover the items from the LAN Server, but Plaintiffs have not identified any such items.”

Stating “[b]efore an order of sanctions may be entered, there must be a showing of prejudice”, Judge McCarthy denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions “without prejudice to reassertion of the motion if through discovery it is determined that some specific evidence is beyond Plaintiffs’ reach because of what the court views as Defendant’s clear failure to preserve Mrs. Mafille’s work computer.”

So, what do you think?  Did the defendant get lucky there?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Upholds Decision Not to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Unredacted Narrative of Events: eDiscovery Case Law

In Kratz v. Scott Hotel Group, LLC, No. 4:17-cv-00212-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2019), Indiana District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, stating “[t]o invoke schoolyard vernacular: no do-overs”, denied the defendant’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision not to compel the plaintiff to produce versions of an unredacted narrative of events associated with his hotel stays and interactions with hotel staff.

Case Background

In this class action lawsuit against the defendant alleging violation of the Indiana Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract and misrepresentation, the plaintiff revealed during a deposition that he had created a narrative of events in a Microsoft Word file to document his hotel stays and interactions with hotel staff.  Later, the plaintiff produced a redacted version of the narrative in PDF format and claimed work product privilege over the redactions, to which the defendant objected.

In October 2018, the parties convened for a discovery conference with the Magistrate Judge, who, under the impression that only one (redacted) version of the narrative existed, denied the defendant’s request to require the plaintiff to produce the unredacted version of the narrative.  The defendant filed an Objection to the ruling in November 2018, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).  However, the Magistrate Judge subsequently discovered that the plaintiff’s counsel misrepresented the facts at that discovery conference and that the plaintiff had sent the earliest, native (unredacted) version of the document to his attorney in September 2017.  The plaintiff had sent subsequent versions of the document, updated in preparation of litigation, to his attorney in April 2018 and June 2018.  Upon learning this information, the Magistrate Judge amended her ruling and ordered the plaintiff to produce the September 2017 version of the narrative in its native Word document format, but not the last two versions because they were determined to be made in anticipation of litigation.  The defendant maintained its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to the second and third iterations of the narrative.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Pratt noted that “Scott Hotel presents numerous arguments that were not made at the October 29, 2018 conference before the Magistrate Judge”, but also noted that the defendant’s objection briefing “treats the Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s decision as an opportunity for de novo presentation and review.”  With regard to those arguments, Judge Pratt concluded that the presentation of arguments not raised before a magistrate judge is “clearly inappropriate” and stated that she “will disregard newly submitted arguments regarding waiver of work product protection and attorney-client privilege. ‘To invoke schoolyard vernacular: no do-overs.’”

As for work product protection for the modifications performed to the document in anticipation of litigation, Judge Pratt stated that “[t]he mere fact that Kratzer recorded his thoughts in anticipation of litigation as modifications and additions to a pre-existing document instead of in a new document does not exclude those thoughts from work product protection.”  Given “Scott Hotel’s ability to depose Kratzer and access most of the content of the later versions of the narrative renders its [substantial need and undue hardship] arguments unpersuasive”, Judge Pratt denied the defendant’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s decision.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that modification of a document previously ruled as not privileged could be considered privileged if it was done in anticipation of litigation?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Sanctions US Government for Spoliation in Copyright Infringement Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In 4DD Holdings, LLC v. U.S., No. 15-945C (Fed. Cl. May 10, 2019), the US Court of Federal Claims, in an opinion issued by Judge Bruggink, “grant[ed] plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because the government destroyed relevant evidence that it had a duty to preserve.”  The Court directed the plaintiffs to “file a motion, appropriately supported, seeking a recovery of its costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and with respect to discovery prompted by the destruction of evidence” and indicated it would “defer until summary judgment or trial the application of the evidentiary implications of this ruling.”  The court also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss “[b]ecause plaintiffs established that the government authorized or consented to SMS’s allegedly infringing activity when working in SMS labs.”

Case Background

In this copyright infringement case involving installation of the plaintiff’s software in excess of the purchased license, the DoD’s Defense Health Agency (“DHA”) “repeatedly” required its contractor Systems Made Simple, Inc. (“SMS”) to perform work using the plaintiff’s copyrighted software in the contractor’s own labs.  The agency purchased a software license from the plaintiff’s reseller for 64 cores and the plaintiff’s End User License Agreement (“EULA”) permitted “the agency to make ‘one (1) copy of the object code to [TETRA] solely for back-up purposes,’ which it could only use ‘if the original copy is damaged or destroyed.’”  The agency also required the plaintiff to disable its software tracking feature to inform it of a software installation.

However, the Chief Engineer on the project (David Calvin) acknowledged in both his July 2018 declaration and his October 2018 deposition that work by SMS would have involved cloning TETRA virtual machines in their labs.  And, in August 2014, the plaintiff contacted the Contracting Officer’s Representative (Sheila Swenson) alleging that more than 64 cores were in use.  In September, Calvin directed the removal of instances of the plaintiff’s software in certain environments.  By December 2014, the agency “identified an over deployment of 168 core licenses to development servers.”  Nonetheless, Swenson reported 64 cores in use because that was the number of cores the agency had originally paid for.  In March 2015, the agency modified the license to increase the licensed quantity by 168 cores.

The plaintiff filed suit in August 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Department of Justice sent a letter to alert DoD of its responsibility to provide a litigation report and to furnish all evidence in DoD’s possession, stating “all records storage centers and other facilities where records are kept be immediately notified to forthwith identify, physically segregate and withhold from destruction all documents and papers touching upon the claims set forth in the complaint.”  Nonetheless, the agency’s Development Test Center (“DTC”) proceeded with a shredding of hard drives later that same month.  In addition, most of the laptops in use related to the project were returned and reimaged months after the litigation hold notice was issued, destroying any data related to the case they might have contained.  As discovery wound down, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions in November 2018.

Court Ruling

The Court found that “SMS was acting (1) “for the Government” and (2) “with the authorization or consent of the Government” when it performed any infringing activity in SMS labs.”  As a result, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

With regard to the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the Court said: “The parties agree on the key events: The agency deleted instances of TETRA during the true-up period without informing 4DD. The agency destroyed the DTC servers’ hard drives. The agency erased all the information on many laptops used on the DMIX project.”  With regard to the DTC servers, the Court ruled that “Mr. Calvin’s orders directing contractors to delete instances of TETRA in listed environments because of ‘a license issue’ is sufficient to demonstrate that he intentionally deprived 4DD of the use of that information in litigation.”  But, the Court also noted that the “DTC decommissioning and laptop reimaging are not as clear cut”, ruling that “communication failure is undoubtedly negligent but falls short of the intentional behavior expected under Rule 37(e)(2)”.

Nonetheless, the Court “grant[ed] plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because the government destroyed relevant evidence that it had a duty to preserve” and directed the plaintiffs to “file a motion, appropriately supported, seeking a recovery of its costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and with respect to discovery prompted by the destruction of evidence” and indicated it would “defer until summary judgment or trial the application of the evidentiary implications of this ruling.”

So, what do you think?  Do you think the court ruled correctly on the intent to deprive standard for Rule 37(e)(2) in this case?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Establishes Search Protocol to Address Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan. Apr. 26, 2019), Kansas Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering the defendant to produce documents related to two requests and, with regard to a third request, ordering the defendant to “produce these documents to the extent that such documents are captured by the ESI search protocol.”

Case Background

This case regarded the defendant’s alleged breach of a retirement agreement with the plaintiff due to plans by an investment firm to install the plaintiff as CEO of an aircraft component manufacturer (“Arconic”) where the defendant withheld the plaintiff’s retirement benefits because the defendant claimed that he violated the non-compete provision in his retirement agreement.

In discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, seeking “the court’s intervention regarding discovery related to the “Business” of Spirit and Arconic. Specifically, Mr. Lawson asks the court to compel Spirit to produce (1) its contracts with Boeing and Airbus; (2) its antitrust filings relating to its planned acquisition of Asco Industries; (3) documents related to the aspects of Spirit’s business that Spirit alleges overlap with Arconic’s business; and (4) documents related to Spirit’s relationship with Arconic.”  At a subsequent hearing, the plaintiff clarified that he was not seeking to compel the full scope of documents sought in the original Requests for Production, but rather only the smaller subset of documents that were the subject of his motion to compel.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the Boeing and Airbus Contracts, Judge Mitchell granted the plaintiff’s motion “with respect to the portions of these contracts (or amendments, addenda, exhibits, schedules, data compilations, or lists) that relate to Spirit’s deliverables to Boeing and Airbus.”  And, with regard to Antitrust Filings, Judge Mitchell granted the plaintiff’s motion “with respect to the portion of these filings relating to Spirit’s business and market/marketing positioning, including the index(es) for these filings, the “4(c) documents,” and related white papers.”  He ordered the defendant to produce documents related to both categories “on or before May 7, 2019.”

With regard to Product Overlaps and Spirit’s Relationship with Arconic, Judge Mitchell granted these aspects of the motion in part and denied them in part, ordering the defendant to “produce these documents to the extent that such documents are captured by the ESI search protocol.”  That protocol was as follows:

“After consultation with the parties, the court orders the parties to comply with the following ESI search protocol:

  • By May 3, 2019, Mr. Lawson shall identify up to seven categories of documents for which it seeks ESI.
  • By May 20, 2019, for each category of documents, Spirit shall serve a list of the top three custodians most likely to have relevant ESI, from the most likely to the least likely, along with a brief explanation as to why Spirit believes each custodian will have relevant information.
  • By May 23, 2019, Mr. Lawson shall serve a list of five custodians and proposed search terms for each custodian.

 *3 • Spirit shall search the identified custodians’ ESI using these proposed search terms. Spirit shall use sampling techniques to assess whether the search has produced an unreasonably large number of non-responsive or irrelevant results and, if so, Spirit shall suggest modified search terms (e.g., different keywords, negative search restrictions, etc.) by May 30, 2019.

  • The parties shall meet and confer about search terms and try to achieve an estimated responsive hit rate of at least 85%.
  • Spirit shall produce responsive documents from the first five custodians on or before June 21, 2019.
  • Meanwhile, the parties shall begin this same process for the next five custodians. By May 30, 2019, Mr. Lawson will produce to Spirit a list of the next five custodians and proposed search terms for each custodian. If Spirit finds that the estimated responsive hit rate is not at or above 85%, Mr. Lawson shall suggest modified search terms by June 6, 2019. The court will set a deadline for Spirit to produce documents from the second set of five custodians at a later time.

If Mr. Lawson wishes to seek ESI from additional custodians beyond the ten described in this protocol, the parties are directed to contact the court for further guidance.”

Judge Mitchell also denied the plaintiff’s request to order the defendant to pay his attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Do you think the ordered responsive hit rate of 85% is reasonable?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.