Case Summaries – Page 224 – Electronic Discovery Law

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for default judgment or an adverse inference where, despite finding that the alleged spoliator had intentionally deleted data in violation of his statutory duty to preserve, the court was presented with no evidence of bad faith in the data?s destruction and nothing more than speculation as to the data?s relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records subject to retention by statute

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Martinez v. Rycars Constr., LLC, 2010 WL 4117668 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to quash subpoena to defendant?s telecommunication vendor seeking production of any and all cell phone records, emails, and text messages sent between January 2008 and the present for the purpose of discovering evidence of defendant?s drug use where the request was overly broad and potentially cumulative; court noted that a more targeted request may have been more appropriate but still questioned how the provider would be able to ?sift? the data to identify specifically relevant communications

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Communication data from cell phone service provider

Gutman v. Klein, 2010 WL 4975554 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for sanctions for allegedly ?producing a non-business-related hard drive in place of a hard drive they were supposed to produce? where defendants delayed too long in bringing the motion by waiting more than four years after the events in question and nearly two years after the court invited such a motion; addressing briefly the merits of defendants? claims, the court found the argument to be ?flawed? where defendants mischaracterized the court?s order for production and plaintiff?s testimony regarding the computers in his office

Nature of Case: Accusations of fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Squeo v. The Norwalk Hosp. Assoc., 2010 WL 5573755 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs brought claims related to their son?s suicide and objected to defendants? request for production of their computer for forensic examination following their admission that their son had rarely used their computer for purposes of checking his email, the court ruled the order sought by defendants was ?too broad? because it was unlimited as to time or subject matter and because defendants failed to show that anything stored on the computer would actually be relevant to the case

Nature of Case: Claims arising from son’s suicide following discharge from the hospital

Electronic Data Involved: Parent’s computer

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Medcorp, Inc. v. Ponpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (June 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where special master determined spoliation was ?willful in the sense that ?Plaintiff was aware of his responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so? and thus ordered an adverse inference and for each party to bear half of defendant?s attorneys? fees and costs, magistrate judge affirmed the adverse inference upon determining it was the least harsh sanction that would provide an adequate remedy but vacated the award of half of defendant?s fees and, upon determining a reasonable amount, ordered plaintiff to pay the amount of $89,395.88

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, No. 09-00228-KD-N, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider its prior order directing plaintiff to produce certain hard drives and other data storage devices for forensic inspection where plaintiff failed to establish that such production was prohibited by Indian law and where plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the court?s prior determination that plaintiff?s behavior ?cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document produced? by plaintiff such that actual production of the devices was warranted

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, data storage devices

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Victor v. R.M. Lawler, 2010 WL 521118 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court deferred judgment regarding motion for spoliation sanctions for missing video surveillance tapes of the relevant ?cell extraction? pending defendant?s production of prison policies regarding the proper preservation of such video where the court regarded the ?question of spoliation? to be ?closely intertwined with the issue of whether the defendants followed their own operations procedures in preserving evidence?

Nature of Case: Prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Catagory:Case Summaries