Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Barrow v. Miner, 2010 WL 4016815 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2010)
2
Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2010 WL 4512337 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2010)
3
DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)
4
Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 WL 5392660 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2010)
5
Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)
6
Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Does I-VII, 2010 WL 5151323 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2010)
7
Ypsilanti Comty. Auth. v. Meadwestvaco Air Sys., 2010 WL 200836 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2010)
8
Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 2010 WL 366653 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010)
9
In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)
10
Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England d/b/a Verizon Mass., 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010)

Barrow v. Miner, 2010 WL 4016815 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2010)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing plaintiff?s claims as sanction for spoliation where plaintiff failed to preserve evidence and in fact purposefully acted to destroy evidence by utilizing scrubbing software and taking other deliberate measures

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs brought suit to recover losses based on a breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful termination, and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s computer

Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2010 WL 4512337 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found the producing party did not take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived as to inadvertently produced privileged documents where the number of documents requiring review prior to production was low in light of the public nature of most documents produced at the same time as the inadvertently produced documents, where the alleged time constraints for the relevant review were ?self-imposed? by the producing party, and where despite representations that the materials were reviewed by an attorney who was looking for privileged materials, insufficient facts were offered in support of that contention

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought indemnification for underlying personal injury suit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered third-party to conduct additional searching for ESI and for counsel to meet and confer in person to determine the proper scope of the search, search terms, etc. and ordered that the costs of future discovery be split, except with respect to the third party?s search of its former CEO?s data, where that CEO had a practice of deleting email on a daily basis to avoid discovery

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business expectancy, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 WL 5392660 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching and to restore back up tapes where the court determined that plaintiffs? motion was untimely in light of their knowledge of the relevant facts (namely defendants? intention to search the hard drives of a limited number of custodians and not everyone listed on their litigation hold notice and their assertion that backup tapes were inaccessible) and failure to move to compel within the court-established deadline for such motions and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause to justify the belated filing; court also noted plaintiffs? failure to show a likelihood that additional searching would result in the discovery of additional responsive emails

Nature of Case: Class action employment/wage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, backup tapes

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Does I-VII, 2010 WL 5151323 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to conduct pre-service discovery for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Doe defendants and, upon the parties agreement, ordered that a third-party expert conduct the discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of Doe defendants

Ypsilanti Comty. Auth. v. Meadwestvaco Air Sys., 2010 WL 200836 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, following an order to produce an amended privilege and a warning that ?it would not be given another opportunity to establish privilege,? defendant?s amended privilege log still contained mistakes and where, in its attempt to correct those mistakes and clarify its claims of privilege, defendant then produced a sworn affidavit which once again failed to properly identify privileged emails vs. non-privileged attachments, court found defendant failed to establish privilege as to the documents in the affidavit and ordered them produced

Nature of Case: Contracts product liabilty

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege emails, email attachments

Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 2010 WL 366653 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010)

Key Insight: In class action for unpaid wages, court denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions arising from defendants? admitted failure to preserve potentially relevant video surveillance tape where, because of the primary purpose of the surveillance cameras, i.e., deterring theft, the court could not conclude that defendants was obligated to immediately identify the footage as potentially relevant to plaintiffs? wage claims and preserve it and where, when plaintiffs? claims were filed, ?much of the footage? had already been destroyed pursuant to routine recycling of the surveillance tapes

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid wages

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)

Key Insight: Where recipient of government subpoenas refused to comply on grounds of unreasonableness and burden, court approved government?s offer to reduce number of custodians from 13 to 3 (out of a workforce of approximately 72,000) and ordered recipient to produce live emails and snapshot of emails from backup tapes for each of the years between 2002 and 2008 which, the court noted, had been preserved for other litigation

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, snapshot of email from backup tapes

Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England d/b/a Verizon Mass., 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment as sanction for discovery violations where evidence indicated that defendants lied to the court regarding its record keeping practices and the timing of their alleged ?loss? of financial records and withheld and destroyed financial records, including intentionally wiping relevant evidence from a hard drive using scrubbing software

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from defendants’ failure to pay access charges for services provided

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.