Archive - December 2009

1
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)
2
Stratienko v. Chatanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 2009 WL 2168717 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2009)
3
Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)
4
U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)
5
Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)
6
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)
7
Am. Serv. Mktg., Corp. v. Bushnell, 2009 WL 1870887 (E.D. La. June 25, 2009)
8
Freeman v. Comm?r of Public Safety, 2009 WL 1919931 (Min.. Ct. App. July 7, 2009) (unpublished)
9
Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 2009 WL 2136112 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2009)
10
V. Mane Fils, S.A. v. Int?l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 WL 1968925 (July 1, 2009)

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stratienko v. Chatanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 2009 WL 2168717 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? objections to magistrate?s finding that sanctions were warranted (including a possible adverse inference) where defendants delayed production of relevant notes for four years and where, despite a duty to preserve based upon specific requests for the hard drive at issue, defendants re-imaged the drive rendering the information thereon unavailable, and where the information stored on defendants? network was also unavailable

Nature of Case: Action arising from physical altercation resulting in plaintiff’s suspension from work

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: As sanction for defendants late production of relevant ESI and forensic images of relevant hard drives in violation of the court?s order, court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from introducing at trial any documents untimely produced or from presenting witnesses plaintiff first became aware of only in defendants? untimely disclosures; court also ordered defendants to pay plaintiff?s attorney fees and costs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic images of hard drives

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Reversing the judgment of the trial court, appellate court ordered production of public records in electronic format upon finding such production ?safe and reasonable? where there was ?no merit? in the government?s contentions that such production created the risk of alteration of records outside of the custodian?s care or that electronic production would place an overly burdensome requirement to retain original copies

Nature of Case: Public records request

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)

Key Insight: Special master recommended granting in part plaintiff?s motion to compel documents withheld as subject to attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine for several reasons, including that the privilege log was incomplete based on plaintiff?s failure to log each message in an email string as a separate and unique document pursuant to Rhoads Industries, Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96404 (E.D.PA.2008); special master noted, ?it would be impossible for the party seeking discovery to challenge a communication or document that he does not know exists?; recommendation includes discussions of attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the common interest privilege

Nature of Case: Violations of Lanham Act, Violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and commercial disparagement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Serv. Mktg., Corp. v. Bushnell, 2009 WL 1870887 (E.D. La. June 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged defendant violated the preliminary injunction by deleting files he was directed to preserve and return to plaintiff, including using wiping software to delete files hours before producing his computer for inspection, court denied plaintiff?s motion for contempt finding that ?without some other indication that [defendant] deliberately deleted files referenced in the preliminary injunction,? plaintiff failed to present the ?clear and convincing evidence? required to warrant a finding of contempt

Nature of Case: Federal trademark and state law breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Freeman v. Comm?r of Public Safety, 2009 WL 1919931 (Min.. Ct. App. July 7, 2009) (unpublished)

Key Insight: Where defendant ?made a minimally sufficient showing of relevancy? by arguing that the requested source code could reveal deficiencies in the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, court found trial court?s denial of defendant?s discovery motion an abuse of discretion and reversed in part and remanded

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code

Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 2009 WL 2136112 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(i) and (ii), court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of plaintiff?s hard drive where defendant admitted that it had not yet exhausted less intrusive or burdensome means of discovering the information sought

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

V. Mane Fils, S.A. v. Int?l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 WL 1968925 (July 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of post-suit privileged and work product documents, despite defendant?s assertion of the affirmative defense of reliance on advice of counsel and its prior production of pre-suit privileged and work product documents, where the analysis of the willfulness of the infringement focused on pre-litigation activities and where, per a prior court order, defendant had not been segregating or logging such documents and so production would be a significant burden

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

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