Archive - 2009

1
Unishippers Global Logistics, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2009 WL 3297817 (D. Utah Oct. 12, 2009)
2
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3052680 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)
3
Pulse Eng?g. Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 WL 3234177 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)
4
Fuller v. Interview, Inc., 2009 WL 3241542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)
5
Reeves v. Case W. Univ., 2009 WL 3242049 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2009)
6
Elec. Machinery Enters., Inc. v. Hunt. Constr. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 2710266 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009)
7
Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)
8
In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 2435750 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009)
9
In re Netbank Sec. Litig., 2009 WL 2461036 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 7, 2009)
10
Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 2777334 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2009)

Unishippers Global Logistics, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2009 WL 3297817 (D. Utah Oct. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant refused to search custodians? user files, network drives, and individual hard drives for responsive ESI but agreed to search custodians? emails and ?all electronic files that are known to contain non-duplicative information? and where defendant provided plaintiff with affidavit evidence of the unlikelihood of discovering relevant non-duplicative evidence in non-email sources, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?unless and until? plaintiff could provide ?some reasonable basis? to require defendant to image and search all electronic files

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Non-email ESI

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3052680 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Where a claims specialist for defendant forwarded counsel?s coverage opinion to third party, copied a claims manager for her company in the communication, discussed the opinion with the third party, and made no claim of privilege until the document was utilized in plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment, court found that the production was not inadvertent and found that the voluntary communication of the coverage opinion waived defendant?s claim of attorney-client privilege and work product; court?s opinion specifically rejected defendant?s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B)

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation regarding coverage obligations

Electronic Data Involved: Email forwarding counsel’s coverage opinion

Pulse Eng?g. Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 WL 3234177 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of redacted portions of emails where the emails were prepared in anticipation of litigation and where dissemination to third party with common legal interest did not constitute waiver pursuant to the Common Interest Doctrine (commonality of interested existed where third party was responsible for manufacturing and supplying the allegedly infringing filter)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Fuller v. Interview, Inc., 2009 WL 3241542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege where production was inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect privileged materials, where the volume of inadvertently produced material was very small (portions of a few pages out of 34,000 pages produced), and where defendants acted quickly to assert the privilege after discovering the inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Termination in violation of Family Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Reeves v. Case W. Univ., 2009 WL 3242049 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Where it remained ?entirely unclear? that defendant performed a ?full and thorough search? for responsive ESI, court ordered defendant to perform a ?comprehensive examination of all electronic storage? and to provide certification of the search to plaintiff; as sanction for ?failing to even search for certain evidence,? court prohibited defendant from re-filing its motion for summary judgment as to two of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Elec. Machinery Enters., Inc. v. Hunt. Constr. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 2710266 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Despite finding defendants ?intentionally destroyed relevant documents at a time when litigation was foreseeable? the court declined to award sanctions where it was not established the documents were ?critical for proving? plaintiff?s case, a prerequisite for such sanctions under Florida law

Nature of Case: Action for breach of contract, spoliation, breach if implied warranties

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and ESI

Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to record data stored on crane?s computer following death of two construction workers, but where plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their allegations that the data was manually destroyed or that the failure to photograph the display was unreasonable and where defendants presented evidence that data could not be downloaded from the crane?s computer and plaintiff failed to request the information downloaded in the first place, court declined plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Negligence resulting in death

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on crane’s internal computer

In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 2435750 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where non-party to international arbitration sought to quash subpoena on grounds including the undue burden of searching for and producing electronic discovery, magistrate judge recommended that electronic data previously produced by non-party in prior litigation should be produced but that the parties should meet and confer regarding the production of additional data and should specifically address including: the medium on which the data was stored, the volume of data, the practicability of searching the data, and the likely costs associated with production

Nature of Case: International arbitration over franchise rights in Mexico

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 2777334 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ruled on defendant?s objections to magistrate?s order, including, among other things, addressing issues of privilege pursuant to FRE 502(b) and analyzing the propriety of claims of privilege as to certain categories of documents, including those stored on a server that was available to all employees; court also ordered each party to bear the costs of production for the documents it requested (a direct contradiction to the presumption that the responding party must bear the expense of compliance) where such an order would ?curb [the] bilateral tendency? to broaden discovery demands to include both important and marginal information ?whose primary utility would be found in the burden and cost of production to the other side?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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