December 2009 – Page 25 – Electronic Discovery Law

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 2009 WL 1098461 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant accessed relevant files after being placed on notice of litigation and thus spoliated metadata, but where defendant?s testimony regarding her lack of knowledge that accessing the files would destroy metadata was credible and where plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing bad faith, plaintiffs? motion for adverse inference was denied

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of restrictive covenant contracts, tortious interference with customer relationships, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

White v. Fuji Photo Film, USA, Inc., 209 WL 1528546 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for adverse inference arising from former employer?s destruction of her work computer where plaintiff failed to indicate that the computer contained relevant information and thus employer did not have notice sufficient to raise a duty to preserve and where plaintiff failed to establish that the lost information was relevant to the action

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s former work computer

Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 207 P.3d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court declined to find abuse of discretion in trial court?s refusal to give a spoliation instruction regarding a missing event recorder where defendant offered a satisfactory explanation for the loss of data, namely, that the data on the event recorder was downloaded to a laptop, that the data was not properly recorded and so the faulty tape was destroyed to prevent its re-use, and that the laptop containing the data was later stolen

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from train/car collision

Electronic Data Involved: Event recorder data

Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 1515609 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to compel defendants to restore backup tapes containing emails that were automatically deleted but where defendants objected to restoration and production due to cost, court denied plaintiff?s motion and ordered defendants to produce relevant data from their ?active stores? first in order to assess the likelihood of finding relevant, discoverable data on the backup tapes; if active stores showed a likelihood of recovery of discoverable data on the backup tapes, court stated that processing at defendants? expense would be appropriate

Nature of Case: Dispute arising between pharamaceutcal suppliers and nursing home operator related to contractual obligations and billing

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Brookhaven Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1515661 (9th Cir. June 1, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s destruction of source code and other discovery misbehavior the district court declined to impose an adverse inference sanction upon finding that ?there was no evidence to support a finding that [defendant] acted in bad faith and had intentionally destroyed the earlier versions of the source code,? 9th Circuit declined to disturb the trial court?s decision upon finding the trial court?s decision ?not clearly erroneous?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Gracebrothers, Ltd. v. Siena Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 1547821 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in response to a request for its board of directors? emails, defendants did not ask directors to search their emails but rather determined through a series of questions that no unique emails existed and argued that the emails were already produced when they produced the ?sender-side versions,? court found that the added production would not be overly burdensome or expensive and ordered the production of any emails reasonably related to the relevant request

Nature of Case: Complaint challenging a reverse stock split in violation of Deleware law

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Earp v. Peters, 2009 WL 1444707 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel copy of copyrighted software used by defendant?s expert to create an illustrative animated exhibit where defendants produced all underlying data and a copy of the final exhibit to plaintiff and provided their experts for multiple depositions and where defendants argued they could not be compelled to produce a copyrighted software ?simply to spare Plaintiff the expense of acquiring the software or the services of an animator?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Copyrighted software used to create illustrative animation

Feig v. The Apple Org.., 2009 WL 1515506 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that identifying responsive employee emails was too burdensome in light of inability to search emails electronically, court found defendant had not satisfactorily established inability to search and ordered production of requested emails; court acknowledged that if defendant established the inability to search electronically, identifying requested emails would be overly burdensome and, in the event searching was truly impossible, ordered defendants to move for a protective order supported by an affidavit of a forensic expert providing an explanation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Archive - December 2009