Case Summaries – Page 226 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held GPS data was properly admitted as a business record where the state presented testimony of an employee for the GPS monitoring company who explained how the monitoring system worked and the testimony of appellant?s probation officer who explained how he accessed the GPS database and printed the exhibits introduced, and where the probation officer had previously tested the accuracy of the GPS system by taking appellant to different locations and checking the accuracy of the monitoring data

Nature of Case: Probation revocation

Electronic Data Involved: GPS monitoring data

United States v. Salyer, Cr. No. S-10-0061 LKK (GGH), 2010 WL 3036444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Acknowledging the general rule that the Government has no obligation to specifically identify Brady/Giglio material that has been disclosed to a defendant, the court noted its authority to require identification nonetheless and, considering the volume of the government?s disclosure, the individual defendant?s detention awaiting trial, the small size of his defense team, the lack of parallel civil litigation, and the lack of corporate assistance in identifying evidence, ordered the government to identify Brady material already disclosed and in subsequent disclosures

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MVB Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 582641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Answering question of whether inadvertent disclosure of privileged information to testifying expert resulted in waiver of privilege, court ?conclude[ed] that a claim of inadvertent waiver cannot be used to withhold information from opposing counsel once it has found its way into the expert?s hands ? however unintentional that may be.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mformation Tech., Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 2010 WL 3154441 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010)(Not for Citation)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where nearly two months following notice of inadvertent production of privileged materials plaintiff undertook a review of its entire production and production process and thereafter attempted to recall an additional 55 inadvertently produced documents, the court acknowledged that plaintiff ?was perhaps not as diligent as defendant would have liked? in initiating its search, but denied the motion for a finding of waiver

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged materials

Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A&L Underground, Inc., 2010 WL 126190 (D. Kan. Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied sanctions for defendants? alleged ?document dump? of a hard drive containing both responsive and non-responsive documents as maintained in the ordinary course of business where, upon plaintiffs? initial objection, defendants re-produced the hard drive with irrelevant documents segregated and with a tool allowing the hard drive to be word-searched and where, despite plaintiffs? alleged discovery of evidence reflecting defendants? purposeful efforts to obstruct discovery, plaintiffs waited 15 months to bring their motion and were thus ?simply too late?

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel re-production of electronic spreadsheet in its ?original format? i.e. without a lock that prevented the manipulation of data, the court rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs request be denied because 1) the original format was protected work product, 2) the parties never agreed to a format of production, and 3) re-production would be unduly burdensome and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held plaintiff?s and third party?s claims of privilege as to redacted and withheld portions of presentations waived where plaintiff and third party failed to meet their burden of establishing the claim of privilege by failing to establish that all persons to whom the presentation was disseminated or shown were ?individuals who needed to know the information contained in the presentation? as would be required to maintain the privilege

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Presentations

Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied Boeing?s motion for protective order requiring the return of the privileged email at issue where the email was disclosed by Boeing to a third-party buyer of its ?commercial facility? when Boeing made a business decision to ease transition to new ownership by temporarily continuing to provide email services to the buyer?s new employees (who were former employee?s of Boeing) by allowing them to use and access their email accounts on Boeing?s servers (which contained the message at issue), and thus did not take reasonable steps to protect the privilege; objections to this opinion were overruled by the District Court Judge on Aug. 5, 2010: 2010 WL 3083536

Nature of Case: Benefits and pension issues arising from sale of commercial facility

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110(2nd Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s First Amendment arguments, court affirmed rulings of the lower courts denying defendant?s motion to quash a subpoena seeking disclosure of his identity where defendant was suspected of copyright infringement online, namely unlawfully sharing copyrighted materials

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement (file sharing)

Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscriber

Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order finding defendants in contempt, ordering their immediate production of outstanding discovery and establishing facts sufficient to satisfy 2 of the 4 elements of plaintiff?s liability claim where defendants failed to timely produce relevant discovery in violation of the trial court?s order and provided no satisfactory explanation for such failure, and where the trial court determined that defendants were ?hiding? discoverable information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from alleged product defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Catagory:Case Summaries