Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Lawson v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2020)
2
White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)
3
Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)
4
Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
5
Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)
6
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)
7
Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020)
8
Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (Western District of Washington, 2020)
9
Nguyen v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (S.D. Fla 2020)
10
Mannion, et al. v. Ameri-Can Freight Systems Incorporated, et al. (district of AZ, 2020)

Lawson v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2020)

Key Insight: The court denied Plaintiffs’ requests for additional text message discovery or the forensic imaging of cell phone data. The court emphasized the privacy implications of producing broad cell phone data, which often contain “the most intimate of persona details on a host of matters, many of which may be entirely unrelated to issues in specific litigation.”

The court recognized “a more narrowly tailored request, supported by a more specific showing of relevance, might be appropriate.” The court directed the parties to work together to come to an agreement regarding the scope of a “carefully tailored, relevant search for such data.” Only if the parties cannot reach an agreement, would the court intercede.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Law

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, Cell Phone Data

Case Summary

White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: good faith effort, a reasonable effort to respond must be made, obstructive and dilatory

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Keywords: vague broad objections, Failing to fully investigate the case is not an excuse from making initial disclosures

View Case Opinion

Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)

Key Insight: argue that those requests and subpoenas are overly broad

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident negligence, personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: medical bills, records, and data for treatment received over a year before incident pertaining to rate of reimbursement

Keywords: subpoena, provider billing structure, medical billing and records, overly broad and burdensome

View Case Opinion

Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Key Insight: At the start of litigation, Plaintiff sent a preservation letter to Defendant(s). Subsequently, a Defendant requested Plaintiff produce records and screenshots of text messages from his phone for the month of the incident that was the basis of the litigation. Plaintiffs produced several screenshots of text messages, but was unable to provide the requested phone records. During a subsequent deposition, Plaintiff claimed that he still had the phone.

Additional Defendants subsequently requested a digital download of all information on the phone. However, in response Plaintiff claimed that he no longer possessed the phone. Defendants responded with a Motion for Terminating Sanctions on the basis of spoliation of evidence.

Utilizing a five-part test for imposing sanctions adopted by the Ninth Circuit, the Court found that none of the factors were in favor of sanctions in the litigation. Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions was denied.

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone Data, Cell Phone Data Image, Text Messages, Phone Records

Case Summary

Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was made aware that he had to preserve his phone records and text records and than failed to do so

Nature of Case: personal injury and liability

Electronic Data Involved: plaintiff’s cell phone and text messages

Keywords: spoliation, text messages, phone records, cell phone, preservation

View Case Opinion

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)

Key Insight: third parties want the court to investigate all of the people that had access to discovery materials and assure that they are destroyed for fear of future litigation or political liability

Nature of Case: gerrymandering

Electronic Data Involved: discovery that had been produced

Keywords: preserving confidentiality of information, public accessibility

View Case Opinion

Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Key Insight: The communications with Plaintiff’s consultant were not privileged because the consultant was not a “functional employee.” There is no evidence that the consultant had “information about the company that would assist the company’s attorneys in rendering legal advice.” Additionally, there was no evidence that consultant’s communications with counsel were primarily of a legal nature rather than a business one.

Defendant’s request for sanctions was premature. Rule 37 sanctions are only allowed against a party for disobeys a court issued discovery order. Additionally, no evidence was presented in support of Defendant’s spoliation theory other than a failure to produce documents to its subpoena. Without evidence regarding what was destroyed, when it occurred, the extent of Plaintiff’s involvement, and resulting prejudice, sanctions are inappropriate.

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: Failure to produce; Sanctions; Proportionality

Nature of Case: Trademark & Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy; correspondence; email

Keywords: “Functional employee”; Consultant; Third-party communications; Privilege; Spoliation; Unfair prejudice; Attorney’s fees and costs; Proportionality; Access/Resources;

View Case Opinion

Nguyen v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (S.D. Fla 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant had no duty to preserve the allegedly spoliated video for the almost two years before the filing of the lawsuit because there was no indication Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence indicating the allegedly spoliated video was relevant to this litigation which would trigger a duty to take reasonable steps to preserve it. No sanctions are warranted.

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall Liability, Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance Video

Case Summary

Mannion, et al. v. Ameri-Can Freight Systems Incorporated, et al. (district of AZ, 2020)

Key Insight: whether the issue of spoliation could be brought before the jury to decide if evidence was withheld and if that was justified

Nature of Case: personal injury, motor vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: Log books of defendant

Keywords: spoliation, jury instruction, question of law/fact

View Case Opinion

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