December 1, 2008 – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff explained that earlier drafts of expert?s report were not ?destroyed,? but that expert merely saved different ?iterations? of report within same file on his computer until report was complete, and where there was no indication that drafts of report were edited or ?ghost-written? to support a predetermined outcome, court denied defense motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Prior drafts of expert’s report

Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 2008 WL 877962 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued order relieving law firm of its duties as Co-Interim Class Counsel for plaintiffs, set scheduling conference and ordered parties’ attorneys to meet to discuss various issues in advance of conference, including joint proposed scheduling plan, preservation of evidence and any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney

Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas

Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) was disjunctive and allowed a party to provide either a copy or description of documents, court found that plaintiff had complied with rule by providing CD containing documents to defendants (regardless of whether document descriptions contained in disclosure statement were insufficient or whether CD was ?searchable?), but directed plaintiff to file supplemental disclosure statement in which he affirmatively states that documents contained on CD were documents he may use to support his claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing documents listed in plaintiff?s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure statement (consisting of more than 11,000 pages)

Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court overruled plaintiff?s objections to magistrate judge?s order denying sanctions and clarifying that defendant was not required to produce ESI in ?native format? or to produce metadata, where limited evidentiary value of producing ?native format? documents with accompanying metadata was outweighed by overly burdensome task of generating such documents

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: APEX files, Lotus Notes email files, and Microsoft Office spreadsheet files

Displaylink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 2915390 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requested source code was relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and stipulated protective order was in place which addressed confidentiality concerns, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of source code

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery issues, court set protocol for production of certain documents by non-party: (1) plaintiffs to specify documents sought in native format with metadata; (2) within 10 days, non-party to file with court an estimate of the cost of production of all documents; (3) within 10 days, plaintiffs to pay into court?s registry total sum of non-party?s estimate, or limit request to reduce estimated costs; (4) within 21 days, non-party to produce those documents or electronic files to plaintiffs in their original format with metadata; (5) within 10 days, non-party to file bill of actual costs incurred; (6) court to review costs and may appoint expert to help court determine reasonableness; (7) court to enter order directing clerk to pay non-party reasonable sum

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

Dean v. New Werner Holding Co., Inc., 2008 WL 2560707 (D. Kan. June 26, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant had nearly six months to review and accumulate responsive ESI, and represented to court that it intended to produce responsive ESI but provided no date for such production, court ordered defendant to produce ESI within 30 days of court?s order

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dynamic Sports Nutrition, Inc. v. Roberts, 2008 WL 2775007 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail on its claims, that plaintiff was suffering ?immediate, irreparable, imminent harm? for which there was no adequate remedy at law, that defendants had posted confidential information about plaintiff?s products on publicly accessible blogs and websites, that individual defendant had misappropriated laptop belonging to plaintiff after his termination from plaintiff and had failed to comply with aspects of the court’s Temporary Restraining Order, court entered preliminary injunction forbidding defendants from, among other things, deleting relevant ESI and requiring defendants to return laptop to plaintiff?s counsel and to preserve all evidence of any disclosure or dissemination of plaintiff?s confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and and violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer and confidential business information

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Archive - December 1, 2008