Archive - December 2009

1
Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)
2
Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)
3
Fells v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2009)
4
1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)
5
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 499014 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2009)
6
Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 2009 WL 64358 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2009)
7
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)
8
King v. State, 908 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
9
Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)
10
Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, in response to request for documents indicating an effort to find work, defendant produced a list of emails and screen shots from his computer, but not the emails themselves, court found defendants response inadequate and ordered production of all relevant documents in his possession

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced only portions of a requested manual in an alleged effort to save expenses despite its ability to reproduce the whole manual ?almost instantaneously? by computer to compact disc, and where defendant failed to produce other easily accessible and relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice but ordered monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fells v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Identifying a difference between costs expended for converting a paper document into an electronic one and creating electronically searchable documents, the court denied defendant?s request for recovery of costs related to ?electronic records initial processing, Metadata extraction, [and] file conversion?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

 

1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered terminating sanctions against defendant and for defendant and its defense firm to pay plaintiff?s attorney?s fees where client made repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of certain chemicals at issue and failed to disclose relevant evidence about the same and where counsel failed to provide adequate guidance regarding the need to locate and produce responsive materials and allowed defendant to make repeated misrepresentations despite significant evidence that those representations were untrue

Nature of Case: Claims of property contamination

 

Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 499014 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff denied wrongdoing resulting from its efforts to access password-protected files containing attorney-client material produced to plaintiff in discovery and relied in part on counsel?s approval of those actions, court ordered emails between plaintiff and counsel produced based on plaintiff?s reliance on those discussions and the ?need to unearth what actually transpired?; court indicated belief that intrusion into the attorney-client privilege was minimized by court?s en camera review of the emails before rendering its decision

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid commission

 

Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 2009 WL 64358 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to quash plaintiff?s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice seeking a representative to answer questions regarding defendant?s document retention policies where the deposition was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information and where plaintiff indicated various reasons why he required the information sought, including defendant?s failure to produce any information regarding a relevant database and defendant?s claims that certain information was no longer accessible, among other things

Nature of Case: Product liability

 

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants

King v. State, 908 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Yahoo! linking defendant to the relevant account and screen name where Yahoo! stated it did not verify the personal information provided by its users and thus ?the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation?indicate[d] a lack of trustworthiness? such that admission under the business records exception was error

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

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