December 1, 2007 – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s counsel became aware of mistaken production of privileged email during June deposition but waited until September to contact defense counsel to explain the inadvertent disclosure and request that defendant destroy and agree not to use the email, court applied five-part test and found ?no overriding interest of justice that requires the Court to relieve plaintiff’s counsel of its production errors?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 4269794 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where accounting information was relevant to plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ corporate form should be disregarded, court ruled that QuickBooks accounting data file for relevant time period be copied to CD and produced to plaintiffs in that form

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks accounting data file

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4513203 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, since plaintiff offered no specific evidence that any of the destroyed emails contained relevant information

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel on variety of e-discovery topics and ordered defendant to allow plaintiffs? expert reasonable access to (1) phone system and backup system for purpose of recovering inadvertently overwritten phone logs and (2) appropriate personal computers or computer network in order to search for particular documents; plaintiffs further allowed to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning defendant?s computer network, phone system, and document retention and destruction practices

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Granting preliminary injunction, court further ordered defendant to “preserve all documents and other evidence (including, but not limited to, electronic documents such as email relating to its use of the AGASSI name . . .” and, within 30 days of the order, to file and serve a report detailing the manner and form in which Target complied with the preliminary injunction

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, email

Franks v. Creighton Univ., 2007 WL 4553938 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court sustained defendant’s objection to interrogatories seeking ?voluminous information? regarding University’s computer systems, email systems, software configurations, system maintenance, and the like as being “beyond overbroad,” finding that cost of auditing Creighton University’s entire computer system was not justified by the possibility that “plaintiff might discover tidbits of information possibly related to this lawsuit”

Nature of Case: Claim arising under Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information about university’s computer systems and email systems

Hsieh v. Nicholson, 2007 WL 2438315 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding any request for spoliation sanctions unwarranted, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of emails where defendant made adequate showing that, after reasonable search and inquiry, he was unable to locate requested emails, plaintiff submitted no contrary evidence, and plaintiff identified no flaws in defendant’s search methods

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email plaintiff claimed was sent in 2000

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced no evidence or description of its attempt to engage in a “reasonable inquiry” under FRCP 26 to discover and produce the requested information, other than the general observation that finding the information would be difficult, and where issue of numerosity was important issue for class certification, court ordered defendant to produce information and if it failed to immediately undertake good faith effort to do so, court would allow plaintiff and his counsel ?to inspect in a reasonable manner the Defendant’s files and records, including electronically stored information, on these issues?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding number of individuals who received particular letter from defendant collection agency

Archive - December 1, 2007