Archive - December 1, 2006

1
Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)
2
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)
3
Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)
4
Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)
5
Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)
6
Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)
7
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
8
Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)
9
Dehart v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., 2006 WL 83406 (W.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2006)

Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had originally asserted work product protection regarding videotape recording of insured’s funeral, but failed to adequately explain the circumstances which led to his statements that the video existed or the circumstances surrounding his claimed discovery that no such video existed, court ordered plaintiff to produce video or explain in detail any reasons for non-production

Nature of Case: Beneficiary sued insurer to recover death benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape recording of funeral

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of order extending discovery cut off, confirming that defendant would be allowed to engage in limited discovery in order to rebut plaintiff’s evidence of software usage documented in plaintiff’s spreadsheets, and to explore the source data for entries on the spreadsheets

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought damages stemming from defendant’s use of plaintiff’s claims software

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate ordered parties to share cost of $15,182 hard copy production (responding party to pay 60 percent and requesting party to pay 40 percent) where parties failed to seek assistance from the court prior to the copying, and where some of the reproduction was unnecessary since much of the information was available through other means, including on CD

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing purchase orders

Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)

Key Insight: In court’s decision ruling on parties’ respective post-trial motions, court affirmed its prior determination that defendants did not use reasonable efforts to locate responsive emails or provide them to plaintiff, and granted plaintiff’s motion to award $11,310 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s costs and fees expended on the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced digitized documents from defendant’s inspection of nine boxes of hard copy documents (some 10,000 pages) per the parties’ agreement, court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide an index of such digitized documents, finding that Rule 34 does not require a party to create an index

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence and breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Index of digital documents

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Lawyer for party successfully appealed sanctions imposed on him by trial court following emergency evidentiary hearing regarding the deletion of files from party’s home computer that was subject to inspection order; trial court violated lawyer’s due process protections by failing to provide sufficient notice of the purpose of the emergency hearing or the potential for sanctions

Nature of Case: Underlying claims were settled, and court appointed a receiver

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer, emails

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