December 1, 2010 – Page 19 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Laurent, 2010 WL 2404419 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant?s forensic expert?s access to the hard drives seized from defendant was limited by protective order which allowed access only in a county building, using county equipment, the Supreme Court affirmed reversal of defendant?s conviction for 20 counts of possession of child pornography on the grounds that he was denied meaningful access to the hard drives and held that the appropriate test ?under these circumstances? was the ??overwhelming untainted evidence test? to demine whether a trial court?s erroneous ruling requires reversal?

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography and related charges

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives seized from defendant

Universal Del. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 2330284 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Defendant?s motion for a protective order precluding compliance with plaintiff?s? subpoena duces tecum was denied where defendant failed to establish the irrelevance of the data sought and failed to establish the unduly burdensome nature of producing the information requested or to assert that the information was not reasonably accessible and where the court determined that an existing protective order was sufficient to protect any confidential information produced

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying motion for re-production of emails in electronic format where appellant was ably to testify that she did not send the emails at issue and that they were fabricated and thus the hard copy emails were admitted in a ?reasonably useable format? as is required by the rules

Nature of Case: Petition for harassment restraining order

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Azevedo v. City of Fresno, 2010 WL 2353526 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where two years following the relevant altercation the taser used on plaintiff was sent to the manufacturer for repair, deemed irreparable, and was destroyed without preserving the data contained thereon, the court ruled the spoliation was negligent and declined to impose dispositive sanctions or evidence preclusion, but, noting it was ?troubled? by the data?s destruction, granted permission for plaintiff to file a motion in limine addressing the propriety of a rebuttable inference instruction regarding the spoliation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from detention and arrest of plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff being tasered and injured

Electronic Data Involved: Taser data

Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: GPS data

King Pharm. Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 2010 WL 2243872 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant produced a partially redacted document containing four inadvertently unredacted pages, court found that the disclosure met the test of 502(b) and that privilege was not waived ?in light of the low volume of production? and defendant?s prompt action to ?rectify the error? upon learning of the disclosure; court also stated that ?the fact that the document had been reviewed and partially redacted does not by itself prevent the disclosure from being inadvertent? and that ?[t]he nature of the mistake in disclosing a document is not limited by the rules, and logically ought to include mistaken redaction, as well as other types of mistakes that result in disclosure.?

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Four unredacted privileged pages of printed presentation

Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443 (D. Conn. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel forensic imaging of defendants? computers and electronic media devices by court-appointed, neutral forensic examiner upon showing that defendants likely misappropriated proprietary information from plaintiff, that at least one defendant breached his duty to preserve by discarding a relevant laptop, and where there was a ?sufficient nexus? between plaintiffs? claims and its need obtain the requested forensic images; court split cost 80% to defendant 20% to plaintiff citing defendant?s ?culpability in necessitating the expense? and set out the imaging protocol to be employed by an agreed upon expert

Nature of Case: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, electronic media devices

Current Med. Directions LLC v. Salomone, 2010 WL 714686 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found attorney-client privilege did not protect emails residing on defendant?s server which, along with other assets, was sold to plaintiff in the underlying acquisition where defendant made no effort to delete the emails prior to the acquisition and failed to independently discover that the privilege emails had been produced to him as part of plaintiff?s production, and where evidence indicated that defendant knew, at least generally, the privileged documents had been inadvertently produced but did not seek their return

Nature of Case: Claims arising following acquisition of defendant’s company and his subsequent termination

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Aponte-Navedo v. Nalcom Chem. Co., 268 F.R.D. 31 (D.P.R. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s first motion to compel, the court found that while information regarding defendant?s information technology department and the hardware and software used by defendant is discoverable, plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and the court could not compel responses to the interrogatories as drafted but ordered defendants to identify the computer program or software used to created or transmit the already produced documents and for defendants to produce native documents with metadata intact

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding defendant’s information technology department, ESI

Archive - December 1, 2010