Archive - 2009

1
Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)
2
Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)
3
Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 673 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2009)
4
Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)
5
D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)
6
Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)
7
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)
8
In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)
9
McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)
10
Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to bear cost of non-party?s production in response to plaintiffs? subpoena where Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides for protection of a non-party from undue burden or expense and where the court found the non-party?s expenditure of $6,000 to respond ?significant?; court?s analysis also noted the parties? failure to fix production costs in advance, as discussed in the Advisory Committee Notes, and plaintiffs? awareness of the possibility that the non-party would request reimbursement

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not consider contact information taken from defendants to be a ?record? and thus deleted the information from his computer and did not return it, court denied motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for violating preliminary injunction upon finding that plaintiff had substantially complied with the court?s order because deletion of the data satisfied the purpose of the injunction

Nature of Case: Fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff?s computer

Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 673 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Where protective order allowed for inspection and identification of documents to be copied and where defendant?s attorney was allowed to inspect documents for such identification and also took notes, including typing portions of those documents into her laptop, appellate court found notes were protected as opinion work product because they would reveal which documents, among thousands, were considered significant to defendants and reversed order of trial court compelling their production

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Attorney’s notes on laptop

Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found that defendant violated temporary restraining order by failing to disclose certain relevant emails and other ESI discovered following forensic examination of defendant?s computer and rejected defendant?s assertions that the failure resulted from his lack of understanding of his discovery obligations, mistake of his counsel, and his own lack of computer savvy; Court ordered defendant to pay attorneys? fees and costs attributable to the additional discovery and motions practice undertaken as a result of non-disclosure

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)

Key Insight: Finding ?no demonstration of legal prejudice, or that it is unreasonable or burdensome to respondent to be required to execute such an authorization? and ?[i]n aid of the policy of compelling the production of evidence at trial,? court granted petitioner?s motion for order requiring respondent to sign authorization required by Yahoo! to release information related to respondent?s email account; finding the authorization too broad, court dictated revised language to be incorporated prior to signing

Nature of Case: Family offense proceeding alleging father sent mother vulgar messages and made false allegations of child abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered specific protocol for search of mirror images of defendant?s hard drive allowing defendant to first remove privileged and irrelevant material and create a detailed privilege log and then to produce the redacted drive to plaintiff; upon receipt of redacted drive, plaintiff was ordered to confer with defendant to establish search terms and to use those terms to identify potentially relevant information on the drive; where plaintiffs accessed information later claimed to be privileged, court would resolve dispute and privilege would not be waived

Nature of Case: Violation of Computer Fraud Abuse Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, interference with contractual obligations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Revenue report from database properly considered as business record under ER 803(6) where report was based on data entered and preserved in database in the regular course of business, where the database was regularly maintained and updated by the company?s accountants, where the accountants had personal knowledge of the information entered into the database, and where the foundation for its admission was provided by a ?qualified witness? familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the database

Nature of Case: Class action arising from alleged violations of Ohio Mortgage Act and common law violations of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Database report

Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

Key Insight: U.S. District Court affirmed bankruptcy court?s sanction that facts alleged against defendant would be taken as established and that defendant was prohibited from opposing trustee?s claims against him where forensic evidence indicated that defendant destroyed evidence by installing cleaning software and by installing new operating systems on relevant computers despite his ongoing duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Adversary action alleging fraudulent transfer

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

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