Gibbons Law Alert
In Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., the New York Court of Appeals held that failure to preserve ESI was simple, not gross, negligence, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the destroyed evidence was relevant to the plaintiff’s claims and what sanction, if any, is appropriate.
In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., No. 14-cv-16 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 1, 2014), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concluded that a party cannot use a video software license to block a party from obtaining relevant evidence. Pero, an employee of Norfolk, sued after he was injured while operating a locomotive. The train was equipped with a camera and recorded the events leading to Pero’s injuries. Pero moved to compel production of the video, which could only be viewed using a proprietary software program. Norfolk moved for a protective order, arguing that providing a copy of the video would exceed the scope of its software license. Norfolk took the position that Pero had to pay $500 to purchase his own license or Pero could view the video in Norfolk’s counsel’s office.
On December 5, 2014, Gibbons hosted its Eighth Annual E-Discovery Conference. The day’s first session discussed the year’s significant developments and featured panelists Michael Arkfeld, Principal at Arkfeld & Associates, and two Gibbons E-Discovery Task Force members; Director Jennifer Hradil and Associate Michael Landis.
It should come as no surprise that litigants continue to ignore such basic discovery obligations as the duty to preserve potentially relevant documents once litigation is reasonably anticipated. A recent case out of the Northern District of New York exemplifies the importance of patience in establishing a record of discovery abuses, including data deletion, before seeking sanctions to address such situations.
An opinion from Judge Rebecca Doherty in In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 11-2299, provides valuable lessons on the consequences of drafting overly-broad litigation hold notices, as well as the importance of providing evidence from knowledgeable witnesses in defense of document retention procedures.
In its recent 4-3 decision in Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor, the New York Court of Appeals added to the growing body of case law addressing the constitutional implications of global positioning system (GPS) technology. In Cunningham, the Court found that the Department of Labor’s attaching of a GPS device to an employee’s personal car that was used for work purposes fell within the “workplace exception” to the warrant requirement, however, the search as conducted was unreasonable because the car’s location was tracked in the evenings, on weekends, and while the employee was on vacation. Interestingly, the Court suppressed all of the evidence collected by the GPS device, not just the data collected during non-work hours, citing the “extraordinary capacity” of GPS devices to permit “constant, relentless tracking of anything.”
In a recent decision in Carolina Bedding Direct, LLC v. Downen, United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson shed light on the limitations placed on discovery by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the circumstances under which a requesting party will be denied wholesale access to a responding party’s computer, cell phone, and email account. The decision also reinforces that courts are unlikely to question a responding party’s certification of compliance with discovery requests absent a real showing of improper conduct, even if it is shown that the responding party failed to produce its own email and text messages that were later produced by another party.
In a recent order in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., United States Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal reinforced the importance of cooperation and transparency in the discovery process, especially when it involves electronically stored information. The order granted Apple’s motion to compel Google, a non-party, to produce the search terms and list of custodians Google used when responding to Apple’s subpoena. Judge Grewal’s order is significant because it underscores that a responding party, whether or not a party to the litigation, should be prepared to disclose the methodology it used to identify and collect electronically stored information in response to a discovery request.
The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) prohibits internet service providers from disclosing the “content” of electronic communications. What constitutes “content” of an electronic communication? It may be easier to rephrase the question: What doesn’t constitute content? According to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the answer is: very little.
In a recent ruling, United States Southern District Judge and e-discovery authority Shira Scheindlin, of Zubulake and Pension Committee fame, held that various government agencies had failed to adequately design searches for responsive electronically-stored information. While the case, National Day Laborer Org. Network et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97863 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012), deals largely with searches in the context of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Judge Scheindlin noted “much of the logic behind . . . e-discovery searches is instructive in the FOIA search context because it educates litigants and the courts about the types of searches that are or are not likely to uncover all responsive documents.”