December 1, 2009 – Page 31 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 2009 WL 222788 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants previously produced documents to regulators without any limitations as to subject matter, court ordered parties in present litigation to meet for at least four hours to discuss search terms intended to identify the relevant documents for production to plaintiff from amongst those already produced; where plaintiff sought documents beyond those previously produced to regulators, court found the request likely more burdensome than beneficial and ordered plaintiff to articulate need for additional documents and to consider compromises to avoid burden and expense

Nature of Case: Securities violations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion for fees and costs related to 30(b)(6) deposition despite acknowledgment that deposition was unnecessary but for city?s delay in locating copies of 911 tapes following original?s destruction by NYPD; court indicated familiarity with NYPD?s destruction of 911 tapes and, while recognizing unique concerns such as storage space, nonetheless indicated the need to balance that concern with the value of tape recorded evidence; court urged city?s counsel to consider measures to ensure preservation of tapes once litigation is anticipated

Nature of Case: Constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: 911 call tapes

Cimaglia v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2009 387266 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for preservation order and immediate production of data related to 2009 railroad crossing failure, finding that 2009 data was not relevant to 2004 incident at issue in light of defendants? lack of intention to present evidence that the system could not fail, and where court found 2009 data was not relevant to rebut defendants? assertions regarding lack of failure in 2004 or admissible to establish ?a routine practice of willful conduct?

Nature of Case: Train collision

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of downloads from event recorders at railroad crossing

Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 331608 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that defendant?s delay in producing a privilege log and the insufficiency of the entries therein supported a finding of waiver, court nonetheless declined to impose the ?extreme sanction? of waiver as to the actual privileged communications but held that defendants had failed to establish that the attached ?preexisting business records? were privileged or protected and ordered the them produced

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

AHF Cmty. Dev., LLC v. City of Dallas, 2009 WL 348190 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where city inadvertently produced privileged documents due to its conversion to new software but then allowed its witness to testify regarding those documents at deposition without objection, court held privilege had been waived and declined to compel the documents? return

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Casual Living Worldwide v. Lane Furniture Idus. Inc., 2009 WL 37162 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce email sent to a foreign supplier despite objection that email was privileged where foreign supplier did not have the required commonality of interest to preserve the privilege i.e., ?a shared legal interest? but rather, only a possible ?common business interest?namely, that the Defendant be allowed to continue to produce the alleged infringing furniture??

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., 2009 WL 274483 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite plaintiffs? claim that they had ?already been prejudiced? by the ?confessed destruction? of ESI in its native format through defendant?s ?systematic purges? of its computer systems, court denied motion to lift stay of discovery and impose preservation order where defendant provided affidavit stating a litigation hold was imposed and that the ?regular document retention policy? had not been applied to information relating the loans at issue in the case, and where plaintiffs presented no evidence to the contrary

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Ross, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where transcript of online chat was erased from law enforcement hard drive following ?computer problems? but where there was no evidence of bad faith, appellate court affirmed denial of defendant?s motion for production of the hard drive and reasoned that State could authenticate the printed transcripts by offering testimony from personal knowledge that the document was what it was claimed to be pursuant to ER 901(B)(1) or through the presentation of ?evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result? pursuant to ER 901(B)(9)

Nature of Case: Attemtped unlawful sexual conduct with a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, online chat transcripts

Gamby v. First Nat?l Bank of Omaha, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant repeatedly violated its discovery obligations, including making misrepresentations of unavailability despite later revelations that documents were available from shared electronic source, and in light of explanations ?entirely unworthy of credence,? among other things, court struck answer of defendant and ordered judgment by default to plaintiff on issue of liability

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 1, 2009