Archive - December 1, 2009

1
N.H. Ball Bearings, Inc. v. Jackson, 969 A.2d 351 (N.H. 2009)
2
Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)
3
Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)
4
Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)
5
Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 673 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2009)
6
Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)
7
D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)
8
Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)
9
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)
10
In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

N.H. Ball Bearings, Inc. v. Jackson, 969 A.2d 351 (N.H. 2009)

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated high probability of spoliation by defendant including deleting data and running disk defragmenter and disk cleanup functions, among other things, but where evidence also indicated potential spoliation of ESI by plaintiff because of its failure to preserve the last accessed date of certain files, trial court gave adverse inference instruction to jury allowing finding of spoliation by either side and appellate court affirmed; appellate court also affirmed trial court?s denial of plaintiff?s request to access up to 250 hard drives for imaging upon finding the request ?too broad and burdensome? especially in light of trial court?s grant of access to plaintiff, upon narrowing its request, to back up tapes and specifically relevant hard drives

Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to bear cost of non-party?s production in response to plaintiffs? subpoena where Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides for protection of a non-party from undue burden or expense and where the court found the non-party?s expenditure of $6,000 to respond ?significant?; court?s analysis also noted the parties? failure to fix production costs in advance, as discussed in the Advisory Committee Notes, and plaintiffs? awareness of the possibility that the non-party would request reimbursement

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not consider contact information taken from defendants to be a ?record? and thus deleted the information from his computer and did not return it, court denied motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for violating preliminary injunction upon finding that plaintiff had substantially complied with the court?s order because deletion of the data satisfied the purpose of the injunction

Nature of Case: Fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff?s computer

Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 673 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Where protective order allowed for inspection and identification of documents to be copied and where defendant?s attorney was allowed to inspect documents for such identification and also took notes, including typing portions of those documents into her laptop, appellate court found notes were protected as opinion work product because they would reveal which documents, among thousands, were considered significant to defendants and reversed order of trial court compelling their production

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Attorney’s notes on laptop

Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found that defendant violated temporary restraining order by failing to disclose certain relevant emails and other ESI discovered following forensic examination of defendant?s computer and rejected defendant?s assertions that the failure resulted from his lack of understanding of his discovery obligations, mistake of his counsel, and his own lack of computer savvy; Court ordered defendant to pay attorneys? fees and costs attributable to the additional discovery and motions practice undertaken as a result of non-disclosure

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)

Key Insight: Finding ?no demonstration of legal prejudice, or that it is unreasonable or burdensome to respondent to be required to execute such an authorization? and ?[i]n aid of the policy of compelling the production of evidence at trial,? court granted petitioner?s motion for order requiring respondent to sign authorization required by Yahoo! to release information related to respondent?s email account; finding the authorization too broad, court dictated revised language to be incorporated prior to signing

Nature of Case: Family offense proceeding alleging father sent mother vulgar messages and made false allegations of child abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered specific protocol for search of mirror images of defendant?s hard drive allowing defendant to first remove privileged and irrelevant material and create a detailed privilege log and then to produce the redacted drive to plaintiff; upon receipt of redacted drive, plaintiff was ordered to confer with defendant to establish search terms and to use those terms to identify potentially relevant information on the drive; where plaintiffs accessed information later claimed to be privileged, court would resolve dispute and privilege would not be waived

Nature of Case: Violation of Computer Fraud Abuse Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, interference with contractual obligations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

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