Archive - December 2010

1
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)
2
R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)
3
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)
4
N. Am. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Bound Tree Med., LLC, 2010 WL 1873291 (S.D. Ohio May 10, 2010)
5
Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)
6
Nissan N.Am., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 1790354 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2010)
7
State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010)
8
United States v. Renzi, 2010 WL 1417475 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2010)
9
Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)
10
One River Place Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 WL 235028 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2010)

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)

Key Insight: For defendant?s egregious discovery violations uncovered with the assistance of a special master, including failing to adequately search for responsive materials and lying to the court about such searching and other, related topics, court indicated likelihood that it would find as a matter of law that an agency relationship existed between the offending defendant and another entity implicated in the underlying accident claims but, recognizing that ?responsibility for punishing BL for its discovery violations lies with the court, rather than the jury? declined to order an adverse inference and instead set the matter for hearing where proper sanctions and the egregious conduct of counsel would be discussed before a final determination was made

Nature of Case: Claims arising from bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions against remaining defendant where defendant was not responsible for the destruction of the relevant servers and the district court thus ?balanced the lack of any assertion of wrongdoing by [defendant] with the harm caused to [plaintiff?s] claims? and where Ohio law provided a remedy for a party injured by another party?s spoliation of evidence, namely a claim for the tort of spoliation (which plaintiff apparently asserted against the actual spoliating party)

Nature of Case: Copyright/trade secret infringement, intentional spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers containing relevant ESI

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching based upon having already conducted an initial, agreed-upon keyword search and upon unsubstantiated claims that additional searching would be unduly burdensome regardless of prior efforts, court rejected defendant?s arguments absent a sufficient showing of burden, granted plaintiff?s motion, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement regarding the searches

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

N. Am. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Bound Tree Med., LLC, 2010 WL 1873291 (S.D. Ohio May 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing several privilege-related issues upon plaintiff?s objections to the magistrate?s order compelling production, court found inadvertently produced email communications resulted in waiver of attorney-client privilege where plaintiffs failed to take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and to rectify the error upon discovery of the production, noting specifically that plaintiff was aware of the production for a matter of months before taking action only after defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, false advertising, trademark infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing a number of issues related to the format and organization of plaintiff?s production and a motion to compel plaintiff?s response to interrogatories, court ordered the production of ESI in its native format where plaintiff failed to object to a request for the same but, where native production was not specified, plaintiff was allowed to select the form of production; unable to determine whether the burden of production of computer data from all computers used by plaintiff over a period of many years would outweigh the value of production, court ordered plaintiff to produce a detailed inventory of each computer and to allow sampling of one or two computers of defendant?s choice in order to determine the need for additional discovery

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Nissan N.Am., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 1790354 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2010)

Key Insight: Upon defendant?s motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), court ordered plaintiff to supplement its discovery to specifically identify sources of ESI claimed to be ?not reasonably accessible? and to provide the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving that ESI

Nature of Case: Defective design of air conditioner components leading to recall

Electronic Data Involved: Not reasonably accessible ESI

State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010)

Key Insight: Where the rules of evidence require authentication sufficient to establish that the evidence in question is what the proponent claims, admission of image of text message was no abuse of discretion where defendant did not argue that the image was not an accurate reflection of the message and where the complainant (victim) and defendant established by their testimony that defendant?s cell phone number and signature were on the image and provided other circumstantial evidence to establish that the image was what it was claimed to be

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for simple assault

Electronic Data Involved: Image of text message

United States v. Renzi, 2010 WL 1417475 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants accused the government of spoliation of all disks (originals and copies) containing relevant data from a particular computer system and requested dismissal of the indictment against them as a result, court denied the motion for dismissal upon determining that defendants failed to establish the materiality of the data such that its destruction (intentional or otherwise) was a constitutional violation and where a complete copy of the data existed on a backup tape seized later in the investigation

Nature of Case: Criminal – Mail fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored on JENKON system

Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for sanctions where, despite defendant?s failure to preserve all relevant portions of a surveillance video tape, the court found the tape would not have revealed information necessary to establish defendant?s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition at issue and thus, there was no prejudice to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

One River Place Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 WL 235028 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing the question of whether document imaging costs were recoverable under 28 USC ? 1920, court noted that ?[t]oday?s technologies allow counsel to exchange ?copies? of [documents for use in the case] electronically, reducing time and cost? and that there was no indication that electronic production was more expensive or duplicative of hard copy costs, and held that it ?would not punish [plaintiff] for choosing the more efficient, electronic method of producing costs? and that plaintiff?s document imaging costs were therefore recoverable under the statute

Nature of Case: Claims arising from property damage resulting from Hurrican Katrina

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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