Archive - December 2005

1
Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)
2
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-20, 2005 WL 3776346 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2005)
3
Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)
4
United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005)
5
Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
6
Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)
7
Cook v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2005 WL 2429422 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005)
8
Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)
9
McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)
10
Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce American College of Radiology reports during certain time frame, to produce all information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, their computer systems, and, if requested by the United States, to make available for deposition persons with knowledge of the computer system maintained by hospital during certain time frame

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: All information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, defendants’ computer systems

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-20, 2005 WL 3776346 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte application for leave to take immediate discovery from defendants’ Internet Service Provider, whose subscriber activity log files would allow plaintiffs to discover each defendant’s true name, address and other identifying information

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ISP’s subscriber activity logs

Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where parties had settled the amount of attorney fees to be paid to plaintiff as sanction for defendant’s failure to produce crucial payroll records until first day of trial, court reconsidered and withdrew finding of bad faith on part of defense counsel since she had made at least some effort to reasonably investigate, and the failure to produce the material was blamed on two employees in defendant’s HR department

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: In connection with criminal defendant’s request for certain emails and correspondence, court held that the term “government” included all agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the government and all subdivisions thereof and it was insufficient for Justice Department merely to state that certain documents were not in its possession and it was continuing to make inquiries; Justice Department ordered to immediately and by formal request in writing, demand that GSA conduct a thorough search and produce all relevant emails, including archived emails on employees’ hard drives

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice

Electronic Data Involved: Email and archived email

Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce all materials that plaintiff’s counsel furnished to plaintiff’s testifying expert, regardless of privilege or claimed work product protection, including emails, summaries, spreadsheets and draft expert reports

Nature of Case: Employer sought to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, spreadsheets, draft expert reports

Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where much of the material sought did not appear to touch on or be relevant to the matter under investigation by the Secretary, i.e., whether fraud may be present in the UBS or Goldman, Sachs fairness opinions based on information provided by Gillette, court quashed broad subpoena issued to Gillette without prejudice to the Secretary issuing a new subpoena more narrowly drafted

Nature of Case: Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued subpoena under state securities act in connection with pending merger

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Cook v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2005 WL 2429422 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Rule 56(f) continuance not warranted where it was uncontested that defendant had produced all relevant electronic entries in its personnel database, and even if other emails existed in computer archives as alleged, plaintiff made no showing necessary to warrant their retrieval at this late date at defendant’s expense nor had plaintiff volunteered to foot the bill for doing so

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic entries in personnel database

Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was not entitled to protective order delaying, until after key depositions were taken, production of tape recording of message left by defendant’s representative on plaintiff’s home answering machine, since tape constituted substantive evidence and was not mere impeachment evidence, and issues of fairness weighed in favor of production

Nature of Case: Debtor alleged violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recording of message left on answering machine

McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce (among other things) computer generated employee profiles of all its employees in North Carolina from 1995 to the present, finding that producing records of over 1,000 employees who were not similarly situated to plaintiff would be unduly burdensome and oppressive and was unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated employee profiles

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.