Archive - December 2010

1
David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)
2
Smith v. James C. Hormel School of the Va. Inst. of Autism, 2010 WL 3702528 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010)
3
Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)
4
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)
5
Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)
6
Salamey v. Berghuis, 2010 WL 3488692 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010)
7
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)
8
Grey v. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 2010 WL 3526478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2010)
9
Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)
10
Cencast Servs., LP v. United States, 2010 WL 3488806 (Fed. Cl. Ct. Sept. 3, 2010)

David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to hold defendant in contempt for its unilateral redactions of alleged personal and confidential information but, upon evidence of over-redacting, ordered plaintiffs to identify approximately 3000 documents (a number provided by plaintiffs) to be sent to defendant for verification of proper redacting and for the parties to confer to fashion an appropriate protective with regard to the documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground proprietary or business confidentiality privilege

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. James C. Hormel School of the Va. Inst. of Autism, 2010 WL 3702528 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to find privilege was waived as the result of a significant delay in identifying withheld privileged communications where defendants were aware that the pro se plaintiffs had consulted with counsel but failed to follow up regarding the existence of privileged communications, where defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, and where the court found no evidence of bad faith, but, noting that one plaintiff was a lawyer and should have known of the disclosure requirements, imposed a monetary sanction equal to defendant?s fees and costs for bringing the motion to compel

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff accused defendant of a ?document dump? in the wake of its production of 4,004,183 pages of documents and where defendants argued that the high volume was a result of plaintiff?s overbroad discovery requests, the court reasoned that the issue could have been avoided had counsel conferred to refine search terms and ordered the parties to confer in good faith to reach agreement regarding reducing the volume of discovery and that absent agreement, a special master would be appointed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged concealment of overvaluing real estate investments

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

Salamey v. Berghuis, 2010 WL 3488692 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010)

Key Insight: Where surveillance footage stored on a hard drive was overwritten and lost, it was ?reasonable for the court of appeals to find that the police did not act in bad faith? where the investigator had no reason to believe that extensive review of the footage would be warranted and where there was no evidence that he purposefully erased the footage or allowed it to be rewritten and where the investigator testified he did not know the drive would rewrite itself while unplugged; court stated, ?even if [the investigator] and other police were grossly negligent in thinking that the hard drive would not rewrite itself when unplugged, that does not constitute bad faith?

Nature of Case: Criminal/Armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage stored on hard drive

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the defendant was warned that failure to uphold discovery obligations would result in severe sanctions and where, with the help of a special master, it was determined that defendant ?repeatedly and knowingly? concealed information from the court and acted in bad faith to prevent the discovery of relevant information, including interfering with counsel?s efforts to identify responsive information, the court ordered dispositive sanctions and found that an agency relationship existed as a matter of law between defendant and the bus company involved in the fatal accident that was the basis for plaintiffs? claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fatal bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty to preserve at the time of defendants? destruction of ESI; court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish the relevance of the emails at issue or any prejudice resulting from plaintiff?s failure to produce certain emails, particularly where defendant possessed its own copies; court denied defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer but acknowledged their right to explore plaintiff?s preservation practices at deposition and ordered plaintiff to make a mirror image of her hard drive to be left in the custody of her attorney to assure preservation of ESI

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Cencast Servs., LP v. United States, 2010 WL 3488806 (Fed. Cl. Ct. Sept. 3, 2010)

Key Insight: Where data was lost as the result of the theft of a laptop and where hard copy documents were accidentally shredded despite efforts to preserve them safely, the court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference where defendant was ?at most? negligent and an adverse inference would be ?disproportionate to the offense?, where evidence was presented that indicated the requested presumption arising from the adverse inference was untrue, and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate significant prejudice as the result of the loss

Nature of Case: Tax related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop, hard copy

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