Archive - 2010

1
In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)
2
Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)
3
State v. Norris, 236 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)
4
Gallagher v. Magner, 2010 WL 3419820 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2010)
5
Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)
6
D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)
7
Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)
8
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod. Inc., 2010 WL 3294389 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 19, 2010)
9
Pitney Bowes Gov. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010)
10
Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)

In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: On petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to produce communications between himself and nearly forty individuals where such discovery was not narrowly tailored to avoid the inclusion of ?tenuous information irrelevant to the establishment of jurisdiction? (the subject of petitioner?s special appearance) and held that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special master to conduct a forensic examination of petitioner?s hard drive where there was no showing that petitioner had defaulted in his discovery obligations, where there was no showing that a search of the hard drive would recover relevant information (particularly in light of petitioner?s use of web-based email), where the special master was appointed without following the procedures called for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, where the special master?s broad authorization to search the hard drives (including the authority to choose search terms) amounted to an ?impermissible fishing expedition?, and where the trial court required no showing of the feasibility of retrieving the data by the party requesting the search

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for default judgment or an adverse inference where, despite finding that the alleged spoliator had intentionally deleted data in violation of his statutory duty to preserve, the court was presented with no evidence of bad faith in the data?s destruction and nothing more than speculation as to the data?s relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records subject to retention by statute

State v. Norris, 236 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Where State refused to produce images to be used against defendant in court and, to avoid being subject to subpoena, gave possession of the evidence to the federal government who was not subject to subpoena, the appellate court granted defendant?s petition for discretionary review, stayed the trial court?s proceedings, and held that the Adam Walsh Act (a federal statue restricting copying and distribution of image of child pornography in federal court proceedings) does not preempt state law requiring full disclosure of the State?s evidence; the case was remanded for further proceedings

Nature of Case: Sex offenses against minors

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, copies of electronic images

Gallagher v. Magner, 2010 WL 3419820 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: District court upheld denial of sanctions for defendants? failure to preserve emails and other ESI where plaintiffs failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the failure to preserve by presenting nothing more than speculation and by failing to pursue other possible sources of discovery (which the court characterized as ?incongruent with Plaintiff?s claim of prejudice?) and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant intentionally destroyed or withheld evidence to suppress the truth

Nature of Case: Claims alleging disparate treatment and impact arising from City’s enforecement of housing codes

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI

Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted leave to subpoena internet service providers to obtain information to reveal the identify of defendant John Doe where plaintiff adequately identified defendant Doe as an individual that accessed and disclosed plaintiff?s confidential information to a competitor; identified its steps to identify the defendant in another fashion (including attempting to contact defendant doe at the email address from which the confidential materials were sent, searching public records, contacting competitors, etc.); established to the court?s satisfaction that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and showed a reasonable likelihood that the discovery would lead to the information necessary to I.D. the defendant and make service possible

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

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of ISP subscriber

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)

Key Insight: For failing to preserve the laptops issued to plaintiffs while working for defendant, the court found defendant was ?at a minimum? negligent and indicated that an adverse inference would be crafted after all the evidence had been received. For ?prolonged delay? in producing relevant emails the court denied terminating sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Electronic Data Involved: Data on laptops, emails

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod. Inc., 2010 WL 3294389 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 19, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants sought production from 10 foreign custodians alleged to be agents of the plaintiff, the court conducted an extensive review of evidence as to each persons? involvement with the plaintiff and the applicable case law from several jurisdictions and found as to 9 of the custodians that they maintained relevant information and that plaintiff exercised sufficient control of that information, in light of the custodian?s significant involvement with plaintiff?s business, that the information should be produced; in so holding, the court rejected plaintiff?s arguments that the discovery sought had already been produced, was not under their control, was cumulative and duplicative, and was unduly costly and burdensome to produce

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failure of tranformer for silicomanganese furnace

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in custody of foreign custodians

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