Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In re Shawe & Elting LLC, No. C.A. 9661-CB (Delaware Chancery, 2016)
2
Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. The Bank of Franklin (S.D. Mississippi, 2016)
3
“A litigant cannot keep its own system secret and then refuse to gather the information itself.”
4
Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).
5
United States v. Lambis (Southern District of New York, 2016)
6
In re NC Swine Farm Nuisance Litigation, No. 5:15:CV-00013-BR (E.D. N.C., 2016)
7
Martinez v. City of Chicago, No. 14-cv-369 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2016).
8
Contents of Personal Computers and Email Accounts Within Scope of Discovery, Search Ordered by Court
9
Arbor, LLC v. Herrick, LLP (NY AppDiv, 2016)
10
Court Orders Native Production Absent Explanation of Allegedly Burdensome Cost and Upon Showing of Good Cause

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

In re NC Swine Farm Nuisance Litigation, No. 5:15:CV-00013-BR (E.D. N.C., 2016)

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested discovery from defendants parent company through defendant. Ability to obtain and control tests failed and motion was denied.

Nature of Case: nuisance, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Various Discovery

Keywords: ability-to-obtain, control

View Case Opinion

Martinez v. City of Chicago, No. 14-cv-369 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2016).

Key Insight: Plaintiff was arrested while police pursuing his brother. Videos from car were mis-labeled and therefore destroyed. Plaintiff could not show bad faith, so no adverse inference instruction.

Nature of Case: civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Police Car Videos

Keywords: adverse inference; sanctions; bad faith

View Case Opinion

Contents of Personal Computers and Email Accounts Within Scope of Discovery, Search Ordered by Court

Sunderland v. Suffolk Cty., No. CV 13-4838 (JFB)(AKT), 2016 WL 3264169 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016)

In this civil rights action, the parties agreed upon search terms to identify responsive material but did not agree regarding the propriety of searching the Individual Defendants’ personal computers and email accounts. Concluding that responsive information located in the Individual Defendants’ personal repositories was within the scope of discovery, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel the requested searches.

Read More

Arbor, LLC v. Herrick, LLP (NY AppDiv, 2016)

Key Insight: Sanctions for failure to preserve. Plaintiff did not issue a litigation hold until 23 months after reasonable anticipation of litigation.

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI destroyed under plaintiff’s record destruction policies: Backup tapes, routine deletion of emails, erasure of hard drives/email accounts.

Keywords: Preservation, spoliation sanctions, adverse inference charge, litigation hold.

Court Orders Native Production Absent Explanation of Allegedly Burdensome Cost and Upon Showing of Good Cause

Mitchell v. Reliable Sec., LLC, No. 1:15-cv-03814-AJB, 2016 WL 3093040 (N.D. Ga. May 23, 2016)

Addressing the parties’ dispute over the proper format of production—specifically, whether ESI should be produced in native format or PDF—the Court found Defendant failed to make an adequate showing that production of native files was cost prohibitive and that, in any event, Plaintiff had shown good cause, and ordered production of ESI in native format.

Read More

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