Archive - 2009

1
Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms LLC, 2009 WL 2365976 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2009)
2
Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)
3
State v. Bowser, 2009 WL 2308068 (Wis. Ct. App. July 30, 2009)
4
Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)
5
Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)
6
HSH Nordbank AG N.Y. Branch v. Swerdlow, 2009 WL 2223476 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009)
7
Sentis v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2009)
8
Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)
9
Chirdo v. Mineral Techs., Inc., 2009 WL 2195135 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2009)
10
In Re Nat?l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 2169174 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2009)

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

State v. Bowser, 2009 WL 2308068 (Wis. Ct. App. July 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant?s motion for a copy of the hard drive containing incriminating child pornography and granting State?s motion for a protective order requiring defendant?s forensic expert to conduct examination of the hard drive pursuant to Department of Justice protocol which required the examination be undertaken at government offices under strict guidelines intended to prevent further dissemination of the images

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs presented evidence of defendants? discovery violations, including defendants? failure to produce all relevant evidence in its possession and ?using computers to generate records for some plaintiffs ?in a piecemeal fashion??, among other things, court granted plaintiffs motion to compel and also scheduled show cause hearing for defendants to show why the court should not order as a sanction ?that Plaintiffs be permitted, at the expense of [the defendants] and their counsel, to have access to a mirror image, forensic copy of the electronically stored information of [the defendants] in order to search for documents responsive to their production requests?

Nature of Case: Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found the requested electronic discovery ?not reasonably accessible? due to burden and cost and because the expense of the discovery outweighed the likely benefit and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of relevant emails where defendant stated they had already retrieved and produced all responsive emails from key individuals containing search terms proposed by plaintiff?s counsel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

HSH Nordbank AG N.Y. Branch v. Swerdlow, 2009 WL 2223476 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered inadvertently produced documents returned where documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine, where plaintiff was sufficiently careful in its privilege review, inadvertently produced only nine documents out of 250,000, and promptly sought their return, and where the parties protective order provided that inadvertent production would not result in waiver

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege communications

Sentis v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2009)

Key Insight: Where, when imposing discovery sanctions, trial court improperly relied on unreliable evidence of misconduct by plaintiff, including accusations of bribery proffered by defendant following receipt of an anonymous phone tip, where the other findings in support of the sanction were ?close questions,? and where there were accusations of judicial bias and the appearance of judicial partiality, circuit court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff?s claims and remanded the matter for further proceeding before a different judge

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s motion to compel the government to produce documents in nine categories, including compelling the government to provide declarations outlining its search methodology and efforts and finding that the government need not attempt to recover emails that had been overwritten because of undue burden and costs, among other things; court rejected government argument that it had not produced a privilege loge because ?producing such a log would defeat [its] unduly burdensome objections? and ordered an ?adequately detailed privilege log for the responsive documents that it withholds from production?

Nature of Case: Action to recover interest accrued on overpayments of corporate income tax

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chirdo v. Mineral Techs., Inc., 2009 WL 2195135 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for alleged destruction of emails where the emails were destroyed pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy five months prior to defendant?s receipt of plaintiff?s EEOC charge at a time when there was no duty to preserve and where plaintiff only vaguely alleged the contents of the documents and their relevance; human resources representative?s comment that plaintiff?s review was ?evidence in support of any future litigation? did not trigger duty to preserve because ?that is the primary purpose for the retention of human resource records? and because she did not know that the time of the statement that plaintiff would be terminated, let alone file a lawsuit

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In Re Nat?l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 2169174 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part a motion for sanctions based on multiple plaintiffs? alleged delay and spoliation, including a failure to preserve relevant evidence, and ordered sanctions including excluding certain plaintiffs from affirmatively using late produced documents and allowing the moving party to proffer evidence at trial that it believed would give rise to an adverse inference and entitle it to an adverse jury instruction

Nature of Case: Consolidated actions arising from the collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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