Archive - July 2016

1
Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)
2
Atiles v. Golub Corp., No. 521828 (State of New York Supreme Court, 2016)
3
Xiong vs. Knight Transportation, No. 1:12-CV-01546-RBJ (D. Colo. July 27, 2016).
4
Second Circuit: Warrant may not Compel Production of Emails from Ireland
5
Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, No. C15-0574JLR (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016).
6
In re Shawe & Elting LLC, No. C.A. 9661-CB (Delaware Chancery, 2016)
7
Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. The Bank of Franklin (S.D. Mississippi, 2016)
8
“A litigant cannot keep its own system secret and then refuse to gather the information itself.”
9
Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).
10
United States v. Lambis (Southern District of New York, 2016)

Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)

Key Insight: Discovery sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination.

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records including personnel files of supervisors and documents regarding performance of other employees.

Keywords: Failure to preserve, search terms, motion to compel.

View Case Opinion

Atiles v. Golub Corp., No. 521828 (State of New York Supreme Court, 2016)

Key Insight: If a party cannot show that destruction of video footage was intentional, then sanctions can be awarded unless it can be shown that the destroyed evidence would be relevant.

Nature of Case: grocery store slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance camera footage

Keywords: video surveillance, spoliation, intentional destruction of evidence

View Case Opinion

Xiong vs. Knight Transportation, No. 1:12-CV-01546-RBJ (D. Colo. July 27, 2016).

Key Insight: facebook information discovered after award was not allowed because Defendant could have developed information earlier and failed to do so.

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Keywords: post-judgment motion; new evidence; social media

View Case Opinion

Second Circuit: Warrant may not Compel Production of Emails from Ireland

In re a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)

In this case, Microsoft Corporation appealed orders from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying its motion to quash a warrant issued under § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act and holding Microsoft in contempt for “refusing to execute the Warrant on the government’s behalf.”  The warrant directed Microsoft to “seize and produce the contents of an e-mail account that it maintains for a customer who uses the company’s electronic communications services.” Although Microsoft produced the relevant customer’s non-content information which was stored in the United States, it refused to access and import data that was stored and maintained in Ireland.

Read More

Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, No. C15-0574JLR (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016).

Key Insight: Citation to Rule/caselaw that omits consideration of “proportionality” is reckless and sanctionable.

Nature of Case: Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) Action

Electronic Data Involved: Medical records

Keywords: “misstate[ment] [of] the law” “outdated caselaw” “recklessly misrepresented” “medical condition”

View Case Opinion

In re Shawe & Elting LLC, No. C.A. 9661-CB (Delaware Chancery, 2016)

Key Insight: Sanctions for attorney’s fees are warranted when computer files are deleted (even if they are recovered) and when a phone is recklessly lost in a “palpably suspicious” incident.

Nature of Case: Corporate management disputes between co-founders

Electronic Data Involved: cell phone contents, computer files

Keywords: spoliation, palpably suspicious, lost phone, ineffective spoliation, reckless failure to preserve

View Case Opinion

“A litigant cannot keep its own system secret and then refuse to gather the information itself.”

Labrier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 2:15-cv-04093-NKL, 2016 WL 2689513 (W.D. Mo. May 9, 2016)

Upon Defendant’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with a list of data fields from two proprietary databases or to allow remote access, the Special Master ordered Defendant to respond to written interrogatories meant to provide the information sought by Plaintiff regarding putative class members and damages.  Addressing Defendant’s objection that the discovery (i.e., responding to written interrogatories) was not proportional to the case, the District Court determined that the Special Master had not abused his discretion, reasoning in part that “[a] litigant cannot keep its own system secret and then refuse to gather the information itself.”

Read More

Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).

Key Insight: Predictive coding may be used to conserve time and expense where e-discovery expertise applied

Nature of Case: Embezzlement/Fraudulent Transfers Action

Electronic Data Involved: Backup storage tapes of exchange server containing tax-related information

Keywords: “computer-assisted review [tools]” “privileged or confidential information” “universe of documents”

View Case Opinion

United States v. Lambis (Southern District of New York, 2016)

Key Insight: Absent a search warrant, the Government may not turn a citizen’s cellphone into a tracking device.

Nature of Case: Drug Trafficking

Electronic Data Involved: cell site location information, cellphone location

Keywords: pings, cell phones, CSLI, cell site, pen register information

View Case Opinion

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