eDiscovery Import – Page 216 – Electronic Discovery Law

MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Cioe & Wagenblast, P.C., 2006 WL 1408402 (N.D. Ind. May 19, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to reconsider prior discovery ruling that MBNA was not entitled to production of responsive correspondence on diskette, stating that MBNA had remedies under the FRCP if defendants failed to produce legible paper copies as ordered in the prior ruling; court also flatly rejected any attempt by MBNA to obtain discovery through inspection of defendants’ computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Bank alleged firm had conducted “sham” arbitrations with bank’s cardholders

Electronic Data Involved: Word processing files

O’Grady v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Internet publishers successfully petitioned California appellate court for writ of certiorari directing that subpoenas issued by Apple Computer, Inc. be quashed; trial court erred in denying motion for protective order because, among other reasons, subpoena to email service provider could not be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act

Nature of Case: Underlying suit involved misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email containing information regarding sources of trade secret information posted on internet

Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Ruling on defendants’ request for reconsideration and after viewing spreadsheets in camera, magistrate ordered defendants to file sworn affirmation and memorandum of law identifying with specificity the allegedly privileged information they contended was in spreadsheets; court further ordered that the contested records be redacted and produced to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets containing payroll and timekeeping data

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Sawyer, 2006 WL 1638537 (M.D. Tenn. June 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where court’s TRO (1) prohibited defendants from destroying relevant documents, materials, information or other property, including electronically stored information and (2) required defendants to immediately return any property of plaintiff in defendants’ possession, custody or control, including electronically stored information, court denied request to convert TRO into preliminary injunction as to (1) because no evidence was presented at the hearing suggesting that defendants had engaged in such unlawful destructive behavior in the past or that they would do so in the future, and as to (2) because defendants had already complied with the TRO requiring such action; court entered preliminary injunction as to other matters

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce “an exact computer disc copy of the actual Quickbooks program used by Defendants to compile their data”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Quickbooks program

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1704447 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered that all hard copy documents be produced on single page tiff images, uploadable on both Opticon and Concordance, and that all electronic documents be produced in their native format with all associated metadata

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Advante Int?l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 1806151 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Motion for forensic examination of opposing party’s computer hard drives denied where movant failed to provide any details about how the examination would be conducted and did not present specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence sufficient to justify the relief requested; instead, court found appropriate the “compromise” suggested by plaintiff that its own attorneys personally review the computers to ensure that any additional responsive documents that may exist in readable form were produced

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Author - eDiscovery Import