Archive - March 2005

Etzion v. Etzion, 2005 WL 689468 (N.Y.Sup. Feb 17, 2005)

In this matrimonial matter, Plaintiff moved by order to show cause for an order allowing her (with the help of a sheriff) to “gain access” to Defendant’s premises and impound, clone, and inspect items containing electronic data. The order was also to shift costs to Defendant and direct Defendant not to make business data inaccessible. The requests were denied, although the Appellate Division granted the part directing Defendant not to disrupt business data. Defendant opposed and cross-moved for a $15 million bond and making Plaintiff responsible for potential harm to his business interests. Read More

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 679071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005)

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. (“CPH”) sued Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (“MS & Co.”) for fraud in connection with CPH’s sale of its stock in Coleman, Inc. to Sunbeam Corporation. Establishing whether MS & Co. had knowledge of Sunbeam’s fraudulent scheme was central to the case, and CPH sought access to MS & Co. documents, including email. Read More

Weiller v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3245345 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2005) (Unpublished)

Plaintiff brought a putative class action in New York state court alleging that Unumprovident Corporation had engaged in an elaborate scheme to limit its liability to policyholders by denying meritorious claims based on economic factors having nothing to do with insureds’ actual qualifications under the policies. Plaintiff named Unumprovident as a defendant, as well as two other disability insurers. Eight other similar class actions are part of a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Unum’s home venue. In addition, six pending securities class actions accuse Unum of implementing the decade long scheme and seek damages for Unum’s alleged failure to maintain sufficient reserves to account for any resulting liabilities. Other related class actions and derivative shareholder suits are also pending against the defendant based on similar claims. Preservation orders were entered in the MDL case and in Keir v. UnumProvident Corp., which required UnumProvident to preserve 25 categories of documents dating back approximately 10 years, including substantially all computer disks and drives, and email files. Read More

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC., 382 F.Supp.2d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

In her sixth opinion in this case, Judge Scheindlin ruled on the parties’ motions in limine, several of which related to e-discovery issues that were the topics of prior decisions:

1. Defendants moved to preclude the introduction of evidence regarding the court’s previous decisions in the case, including the imposition of sanctions on UBS. Granting the motion, the court agreed with defendants that the earlier decisions were irrelevant to plaintiff’s discrimination claims and would unfairly prejudice UBS. The court noted that the jurors would be told all they need to know through the evidence admitted at trial and through the court’s charge, and that there was no need to reference the court’s earlier decisions. Read More

Harrison v. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P., 2005 WL 517342 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2005)

In this case, a company (NovelAire) filed a complaint against its former employees (Harrison and Bucklin) for breach of agreement and breach of fiduciary duties, intentional interference with a contract, and violations of Lousiana’s unfair trade practices act. The same day it filed its complaint, NovelAire applied ex parte for the issuance of a pre-trial discovery order, entitled “Order for Expedited Discovery to Preserve Evidence.” The request was based, in part, on an email written by Bucklin that allegedly evidenced the employees’ intent to destroy discoverable evidence pertinent to NovelAire’s state court case. Read More