Author - eDiscovery Import

1
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)
2
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)
3
Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)
4
ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)
5
Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)
6
Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)
7
In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)
8
Legacy, Inc. v. Tekserve POS, LLC, 2007 WL 772958 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2007)
9
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)
10
Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff showed that defendant failed to produce hundreds of responsive emails which plaintiff ultimately obtained through third-party discovery, court found defendant’s discovery conduct to be dilatory and inadequate and imposed sanction of $54,000 for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, and another $20,000 payable to the court as sanction for unnecessarily prolonging and increasing the expense of the litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena issued by plaintiff directing YAHOO! Inc. to produce all emails sent or received by individual defendant during specific time period in light of privacy and privilege concerns, but advised that plaintiff could obtain a new subpoena that was limited in scope

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied discovery motion because counsel’s exchange of emails did not satisfy Rule 37 meet and confer requirement; notwithstanding such denial, court found that defense counsel’s email attaching additional documents and advising that there were no other responsive documents did not satisfy the letter or spirit of court’s prior discovery order or the federal rules; court ordered defendant to prepare written response in accordance with Rule 34(b) and pay sanctions of $500 to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment against defendants and dismissed their counterclaims with prejudice as sanction for repeated discovery violations and blatent disregard of court’s orders; among other things, defendants had failed to produce any emails and discarded individual defendant’s computer that was subject to inspection request

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)

Key Insight: Debtor’s liability to his former employer for willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and for award of sanctions based on his spoliation of evidence were exempted from discharge in bankruptcy; court granted former employer’s motion to lift automatic stay so that trial court could determine the amounts for which debtor was liable and enter final judgment

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and confidential business data

Legacy, Inc. v. Tekserve POS, LLC, 2007 WL 772958 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded his hard drive the day after the lawsuit was filed, court granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions but ordered plaintiff to pare down the requested fees and expenses to those having a proximate causal nexus to the spoliation; court further ordered counsel to meet and confer on the issue

Nature of Case: Company sued former employee who downloaded proprietary files just prior to resigning and going to work for competitor

Electronic Data Involved: Confidential files

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Court awarded $22,371 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with earlier motion to compel that court granted on November 14, 2006; court further ordered that plaintiff’s second motion to compel relating to the same issues would be set for hearing

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports

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