Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)
2
Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)
3
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)
4
Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110(2nd Cir. 2010)
5
Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)
6
Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)
7
Amerisource Corp. v. RX USA Int?l, Inc., 2010 WL 2730748 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2010)
8
Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)
9
Salamey v. Berghuis, 2010 WL 3488692 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010)
10
Kwon v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2010 WL 571941 (D. Haw. Feb. 17, 2010)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying motion for re-production of emails in electronic format where appellant was ably to testify that she did not send the emails at issue and that they were fabricated and thus the hard copy emails were admitted in a ?reasonably useable format? as is required by the rules

Nature of Case: Petition for harassment restraining order

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Amerisource Corp. v. RX USA Int?l, Inc., 2010 WL 2730748 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Where a non-party principal of defendant fabricated emails, used those emails to support defendant?s claim, and testified to their authenticity during the course of litigation, the court sanctioned the non-party and defendant and found them jointly and severally liable for payment of $100,000 – half to be paid to plaintiff and half to be paid to the clerk of the court; to sanction non-party, court reasoned that as ?the majority shareholder, chief executive, and only person affiliated with [defendant] to have a substantive role in this litigation?, ?[the principal] is RxUSA? and relied upon its inherent authority to sanction him for litigation misconduct

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated emails

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s ?workaday use? of the laptop at issue unknowingly resulted in the destruction of usable data and where the laptop did not belong to the plaintiff, was later returned to its third-party owner, and was then wiped clean, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions against plaintiff upon finding that there was insufficient evidence of plaintiff?s control of the laptop or that he knew the laptop would be wiped and, more importantly, where the court found that plaintiff?s destruction of data by using the laptop occurred before he knew it would have such a result

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Salamey v. Berghuis, 2010 WL 3488692 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010)

Key Insight: Where surveillance footage stored on a hard drive was overwritten and lost, it was ?reasonable for the court of appeals to find that the police did not act in bad faith? where the investigator had no reason to believe that extensive review of the footage would be warranted and where there was no evidence that he purposefully erased the footage or allowed it to be rewritten and where the investigator testified he did not know the drive would rewrite itself while unplugged; court stated, ?even if [the investigator] and other police were grossly negligent in thinking that the hard drive would not rewrite itself when unplugged, that does not constitute bad faith?

Nature of Case: Criminal/Armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage stored on hard drive

Kwon v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2010 WL 571941 (D. Haw. Feb. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion in limine and imposed an adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve surveillance video tape potentially containing footage of the underlying accident upon finding that defendant was aware of its duty to preserve but took no steps to prevent the footage from being automatically recorded over; court denied request for default judgment where such a drastic step was not warranted absent evidence of the ?requisite willfulness, fault, or bad faith?; court declined to impose monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

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