December 2008 – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found defendant failed to establish burden of proving ESI was not reasonably accessible where testimony established the relevant computer system could b searched in-house with ?minimal? time spent and ordered defendant to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs; court ordered search of backup tapes without deciding the issue of reasonable accessibility where plaintiff established ?good cause? for why the tapes should be searched and ordered defendants to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/warranty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Bunty, 2008 WL 2371211, (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where government agents altered the ?last accessed? date of relevant files by opening the files to investigate their contents, court denied defendant?s motion for spoliation sanctions upon finding that 1) the agents used the least intrusive means of determining the content of the disks in good faith and 2) the defendant suffered ?minimal? prejudice as a result of the alteration

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Last accessed data

Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Appellate court found that pornographic video attached to an email from defendant was properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) where, considering the ?appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances,? the video was found to be what it was purported to be and where, applying the ?reply letter doctrine? the video was considered to be genuine and admissible in light of the fact that it was sent in response to a message sent by the government inquiring about the video, among other things

Nature of Case: Promotion of or possession with intent to promote obscene material

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic video attachment to email

Ex parte Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 So.2d 355 (2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied (in part) motion for writ of mandamus to vacate trial court?s order compelling production of ?all documents regarding the relationship between Nationwide and its counsel? where Nationwide failed to show that the information was ?patently irrelevant,? as required, and where the court opined that the information was accessible through its counsel and was thus unpersuaded that production would be arduous; court granted motion (in part) and directed trial court to vacate order compelling production of all electronic communications with counsel where court found that communications occurring after denial of coverage were within period in which litigation was anticipated and were therefore privileged

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI regarding relationship with counsel

Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court of Appeals reversed Special Court of Appeals and remanded case for new trial based on State?s failure to properly authenticate surveillance video where State entered video into evidence but provided no testimony as to ?the process used, the manner of the operation of the cameras, the reliability of authenticity of its images, or the chain of custody of the pictures?

Nature of Case: First degree assault and related offenses

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider dismissal of plaintiffs? case as sanction for ?campaign of fraud? that included intentionally wiping data, ?losing? original CDs and tape recordings, and misrepresentations to the court where the court found plaintiff?s behavior willful and prejudicial and where lesser sanctions would not have sufficed and where plaintiffs? alleged ?new evidence? was also ?suspect?; dismissal affirmed on appeal (2010 WL 2294538)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Simels, 2008 WL 5383138 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where attorneys for lay criminal defendant were indicted for conspiracy and privileged materials were seized, parties established procedure for identification of privilege by allowing ?privilege team? of government lawyers segregated from prosecution team to review seized materials, concurrent with defense teams, and for the teams to reach agreement regarding each documents privilege status; where lay criminal defendant refused to waive attorney client privilege such that attorney defendants could use privileged materials at trial, court ruled disclosure to attorney defendants? counsel would not waive lay defendant?s privilege but declined to rule on the use of those materials at trial where such consideration was ?premature?

Nature of Case: Narcotic trafficking, conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Archive - December 2008