December 2010 – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

Boyd v. Toyobo Am., Inc. (In Re Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.) 2010 WL 3168643 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found email had not been properly authenticated where the email was not self authenticating and where the email was a purely internal communication between employees of a third party company and thus could not be authenticated by the defense witness who was not an employee of that company, was not listed as a recipient of the email, and testified that he had never seen the document before

Nature of Case: Adversarial action in Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s ?workaday use? of the laptop at issue unknowingly resulted in the destruction of usable data and where the laptop did not belong to the plaintiff, was later returned to its third-party owner, and was then wiped clean, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions against plaintiff upon finding that there was insufficient evidence of plaintiff?s control of the laptop or that he knew the laptop would be wiped and, more importantly, where the court found that plaintiff?s destruction of data by using the laptop occurred before he knew it would have such a result

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Felman Prod., Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 2010 WL 2944777 (S.D.W.Va. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding of waiver based upon plaintiff?s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the district court found no error in fact or law and affirmed the order noting that ?the ridiculously high number of irrelevant communications and the large volume of privileged communications produced demonstrate a lack of reasonableness?

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 WL 2605855 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had produced millions of pages organized as maintained in the usual course of business, court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to precisely match the documents produced with the request to which they responded, but, citing plaintiff?s ?demonstrated ample resources?, ordered plaintiff to ?generally match up its documents with defendant?s requests by letter, chart, or some form of index? within 14 days; court declined to compel production of metadata that did not exist and ?OCR information? but ordered plaintiff to provide ?custodian information? as to those documents which lacked it

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 219 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), court entered protective order controlling the scope and production format of ESI as well as establishing that inadvertent disclosure would not result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection and establishing a protocol for how to notify opposing counsel of inadvertent production and counsel?s appropriate response

Nature of Case: Tribal trust case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 235 P.3d 265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the trial court concluded that defendant committed discovery violations in bad faith, including failing to timely produce responsive information, withholding responsive information even after a court order to produce, failing to provide an explanation for the failure to produce certain responsive information, producing certain documents only after being presented with evidence of their existence by plaintiff, and purging responsive documents from relevant files during the pendency of litigation, and where a lesser sanctions were properly considered, appellate court found ?reasonable grounds supporting the court?s decision? and affirmed the sanction of default judgment

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights, selective enforcement of the law, failure to supervise, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard copy

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 2010 WL 2652412 (D.N.J. July 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find spoliation had occurred as to specific emails believed by plaintiff to have been withheld or destroyed by defendant absent sufficient evidence but, relying on defendant?s claims of work-product immunity as to a document created in Feb. 2006, found that defendant anticipated litigation as of that time and imposed an adverse inference as to any documents systematically destroyed after that date pursuant to defendant?s policy of maintaining electronic documents for only one month

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., LLC, 2010 WL 2764714 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of a likelihood of success in its claims and a possibility of irreparable harm absent judicial intervention, the court granted plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction precluding defendants from using, copying or divulging plaintiff?s confidential information and from destroying or erasing such information, among other things; upon the parties? agreement, the court also appointed a Special Master to preside over all proceedings regarding the preservation of plaintiff?s information in the possession of defendants, the forensic imaging of defendant?s computer systems and servers to determine the extent of plaintiff?s information in their possession, and defendant?s communications with any of plaintiff?s customers appearing in the alleged confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Archive - December 2010