Archive - 2010

1
In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)
2
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 2010 WL 2560455 (D. Neb. June 24, 2010)
3
Haskins v. State, 2010 WL 2524797 (Tex. Ct. App. June 24, 2010)
4
Kandel v. Brother Int?l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
5
CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse N., Inc., 2010 WL 2365162 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2010)
6
People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)
7
Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (R.I. 2010)
8
Dutch v. United States, 997 A.2d 685 (D.C. 2010)
9
Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)
10
URS Corp. v. Isham, 2010 WL 2428841 (D.S.C. June 11, 2010)

In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish plaintiffs? responsibility for destroying or losing any documents and failed to establish prejudice resulting from the loss, the court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and denied defendants? renewed motion for sanctions; in so deciding, court declined to follow the standard for imposing an adverse inference previously set forth in Forest Labs, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009) which held that under some circumstances, ordinary negligence is sufficient culpability to impose an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy adversary proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 2010 WL 2560455 (D. Neb. June 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented evidence purportedly showing defendant?s intentional destruction of relevant evidence, court found an imminent threat of irreparable harm to plaintiff existed absent an order to prevent the destruction and that such an order was not likely to cause significant harm to third parties and thus granted plaintiff?s motion for a temporary restraining order preventing such destruction and requiring collection and preservation of relevant evidence, among other things

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Haskins v. State, 2010 WL 2524797 (Tex. Ct. App. June 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Relying on precedent stating that ?computer-generated data is not hearsay because there is no human declarant?, appellate court held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a document detailing the number of times a particular coupon had been scanned where testimony established that the information in the printout was automatically generated, that the information was safe from alteration while stored in the relevant computer system, that the information had not been altered, and that the computer from which the information was generated was not malfunctioning

Nature of Case: Theft

Electronic Data Involved: Printout of computer generated data

Kandel v. Brother Int?l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Key Insight: Court found production of privileged documents was ?inadvertent? within the meaning of the parties? stipulated protective order and that the privilege was therefore not waived where defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent production, including creating and following a document review protocol, identifying privileged names to assist in the segregation of potentially privileged documents, and requesting that certain key words searches be used to identify potentially privileged information and where defendants took prompt steps to retrieve the privileged documents upon discovering their disclosure; district court affirmed the order, noting that the review was ?obviously complicated? by the fact that ?many or most of the documents were in Japanese and had to be obtained from Japan?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging unfair business practices and related claims in connection with design of toner cartridges

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse N., Inc., 2010 WL 2365162 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged plaintiff had violated the protective order by using information contained on a hard drive and backup tapes provided by a third party to initiate additional lawsuits, court denied defendant?s motion to dismiss absent evidence of prejudice but granted third party?s motion for protective order preventing such use going forward; for plaintiff?s failure to supplement discovery, court denied motion for dismissal but gave permission for defendant?s expert to supplement report based on newly-obtained information

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained on hard drive, backup tapes

People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)

Key Insight: Reversing the order of the trial court, the Supreme Court established 5 part test to challenge the issuance of a pretrial subpoena and quashed the subpoenas issued by defendant where, by ordering the relevant individuals to submit their computers to inspection by defendant?s expert, the trial court ?improperly converted the subpoenas into the functional equivalent of search warrants? and where defendant failed to establish any factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the emails sought existed or that they contained material evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Contents of hard drives

Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (R.I. 2010)

Key Insight: Supreme court affirmed admission of ?membership data reports? generated from plaintiff?s database as business records and rejected defendant?s arguments that they lacked the necessary guarantees of trustworthiness where the records were relied upon in the usual course of business and where evidence indicated the software had been calibrated to ensure accuracy, among other things, and where the records were properly authenticated by testimony regarding the manner in which they were created and evidence the system had been producing accurate results

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ?Membership data reports? generated from plaintiff?s database

Dutch v. United States, 997 A.2d 685 (D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: Court found admission of two documents derived from information stored on computers as ?business records? was proper where evidence established the data was created and stored in the relevant information system at the time of the transaction at issued, where the data was created and used by merchants in usual course of their business, and where sufficient testimony was presented to ?give adequate reason to trust the authenticity of the documents?

Nature of Case: Conviction for attempted uttering (cashing a forged check)

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy business records “derived from information stored on computers”

Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant challenged admission of hard copy images and video reproduced from electronic files on DVD which were copied from hard drives found in defendant?s computer, Supreme Court declined to extend best evidence rule to require admission of the hard drives themselves and, where forensic expert testified to the integrity of the copying process and where testimony was presented that verified the reproductions were accurate representations of the illicit material for which defendant was charged, court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that the evidence was properly admitted

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Images copied from DVDS with in turn were copied from original hard drives

URS Corp. v. Isham, 2010 WL 2428841 (D.S.C. June 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for preservation and inspection of defendant?s relevant hardware but found plaintiff?s proposed protocol overly burdensome and thus ordered adherence to defendant?s proposed protocol which called for more targeted searches using terms proposed by plaintiff and provided a more reasonable time frame for the production of documents and privilege logs; parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Claims arising from employees’ departure from plaintiff’s company to join defendant’s

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

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