Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party
Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court’s order granting temporary injunction protecting Vinmar’s trade secrets; evidence at hearing included testimony of neutral forensic computer analyst jointly hired by the parties pursuant to court order, who examined former employees? computers and located some 321,000 “hits” using keyword search “Vinmar,” which expert said translated into thousands of Vinmar documents on those computers, and found indications of possible spoliation
Nature of Case: Chemical trading company sued former employees to enforce confidentiality and non-compete agreements
Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information, spreadsheets
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendants to produce the subject computer for inspection, appointed an expert to conduct the examination whose fees would be shared by the parties, and set out two distinct procedures for production of the computer ? one for reviewing the computer?s hardware, software, and operating system and one for reviewing information stored on the computer
Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claimed defendants wrongfully disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential medical information stored on a computer hard drive by placing the computer on the curb for trash disposal
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive of subject computer
Key Insight: Court denied defense motion for dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to preserve laptop’s hard drive, since there was no evidence that plaintiff’s conduct was intentional or in bad faith — plaintiff explained that hard drive was replaced after laptop crashed and before defendant’s discovery requests were received
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for ultimate sanction of dismissal based upon defendant’s loss of videotape, since there was no proof of willful or bad faith destruction and marginal relevance of missing videotape was such that plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the case was not meaningfully compromised
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape showing unpleasant encounter between plaintiff and customer which preceded plaintiff’s termination
Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions
Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents
Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support
Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered Swiss defendants to produce all documents relating to their contacts with the United States, including email, and further ordered that such email and any attachments be produced in native format as specified in the request for production
Nature of Case: Patent litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: Upon remand from district court judge, magistrate set out various reasons why he denied plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it sought to impose sanctions for defendant’s alleged failure to produce all spreadsheet materials in native format, its failure to timely produce spreadsheet materials, and its conduct in re-producing spreadsheet materials in non-native format that had already been produced in native format
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.