Electronic Discovery, or “E-Discovery”, is not considered the “novel issue” it once was. However, E-Discovery still presents problems that litigants and courts struggle with. Below is a summary of recent Louisiana Federal Court opinions dealing with the issues surrounding E-Discovery.
In Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 184889 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007), the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. In an unfair competition and trade secret theft action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a former employee, had stolen various data files. Plaintiff had unsuccessfully requested production of defendant’s laptop and desktop. The Court granted the motion to compel the defendant to produce these two items because they were the most likely places that the data files would be located. The Court did institute protective measures so as to prevent the disclosure of any irrelevant or personal information.
In Auto Club Family Ins. Co. v. Ahner, 2007 WL 2480322 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2007), the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a non-party’s motion for a protective order when the non-party was subpoenaed to produce electronically stored information. The non-party in the insurance suit stemming from Hurricane Katrina was subpoenaed to provide hard copies of its investigation files and the corresponding electronic data. The Court held that the non-party did not meet its burden in proving to the Court that “the data sought is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” and therefore had to produce the electronic data in addition to the hard copies.
In Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009), a case in the Middle District of Louisiana, the defendant sought access to the plaintiff’s phone and e-mail system to obtain the original version of a photograph the plaintiff had given to the defendant as part of discovery. The defendant claimed the produced photograph taken from a phone was of low quality and wanted access to the plaintiff’s phone and e-mail to obtain a clearer picture. The Court denied the motion because the defendant failed to ask for the particular form of the discovery in regards to the picture and therefore had to settle with what the plaintiff had produced.
In Marketfare Annunciation, LLC v. United Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3273440 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2007), the Eastern District of Louisiana dealt with a spoliation issue involving electronic evidence in a claim that arose due to Hurricane Katrina. The defendant failed to produce certain e-mails even after the plaintiff put the defendants on notice to preserve them. However, the plaintiff waited until the eve of the close of discovery to file sanctions and therefore the court denied the request.
In Thomas v. IEM, 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008), the Middle District of Louisiana dealt with a civil rights violation. The plaintiff served a Rule 45 subpoena on the defendant in order to obtain access to nine named individuals’ e-mail boxes. The Court held this was an attempt to circumvent discovery deadlines under Rules 26 and 34 and therefore did not grant the request.
In Canon USA, Inc. v. SAM, Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008), the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a motion to compel electronically stored data that the defendant had at his home in Florida. After Hurricane Katrina, defendant moved his computer to Florida but when discovery requests were made he did not search the computer to provide complete answers to interrogatories. The court held that this “lackadaisical” treatment of discovery was unacceptable and held that any undeleted information on the computer was discoverable. The Court ordered the defendant to obtain the services of a “forensic computer specialist” and fully respond to the discovery request.
In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 2008 WL 4183609 (M.D. La. Sept. 11, 2008), a case in the Middle District of Louisiana, a bankruptcy liquidating supervisor accused a creditor of destroying evidence and sought the adverse presumption that follows spoliation. The creditor had deleted e-mails that the liquidating supervisor considered necessary evidence. However, the court held that spoliation requires bad faith and here there was no bad faith due to the fact that the creditor destroyed e-mails automatically every sixty to ninety days.
In Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 2191357 (E.D. La. May 7, 2008), the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that a plaintiff could not take another deposition of the defendant’s representatives regarding how the defendants preserved and collected electronic data. The Court stated that since the plaintiffs failed to list “e-Discovery” as an issue at the original deposition and since they waited until two days before the close of discovery, the motion to compel the second deposition was denied. The Court also stated that “e-discovery” matters are no longer the novel issues that they once were with the advent of the Internet and wide expansion of computerized data collection and the plaintiffs had no legitimate excuse as to why they failed to make issue of “e-discovery” at the original deposition.
In Hoover v. Fla. Hydro, Inc., 2008 WL 4467661 (E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2008), the Eastern District of Louisiana allowed discovery of two non-parties’ computers. In this breach of contract claim, the defendant sought the electronic data from the plaintiff’s mother and a friend who helped him in his business. The Court held that this would not create an undue burden on the mother because the non-party was involved in the plaintiff’s business and would have relevant information stored on her computer. The subpoena was quashed as to the friend because he had adequately answered the discovery request.
In May v. Fedex Freight Southeast, Inc., et al., 2009 WL 1605211 (M.D. La. June 8, 2009), a Middle District of Louisiana case, the plaintiff brought suit for sexual harassment while she was employed by the defendant. Plaintiff sought “any and all e-mails referencing, as well as those sent to and from, plaintiff and [the accused sexual harasser].” The defendant claimed that this was not possible because the e-mail was inaccessibly archived and unsorted. The Court held that the plaintiff and defendant had to meet with the defendant’s IT department to discuss the “burden and expense of producing the e-mails requested by plaintiff.” If then there was still no agreement, the plaintiff was urged to reassert her motion to compel.