Catagory:Case Summaries

1
United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010)
2
United States v. Hornback, 2010 WL 4628944 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010)
3
Commonwealth v. Suarez-Irizzary, 2010 WL 5312257 (Pa. Comm. Pl. Aug. 6, 2010)
4
Rosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
5
Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)
6
Chenault v. Dorel Indus., Inc., No. A-08-CA-354-SS, 2010 WL 3064007 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2010)
7
U.S. v. Bortnick, 2010 WL 935482 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2010)
8
In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)
9
Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
10
MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)

United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Court reasoned that the Adam Walsh Act?s requirement that defendant have ?ample access? to examine child pornography evidence did not mean ?equal access? and ruled that where defendant?s expert was given access to the evidence under certain conditions (including time and place restrictions) but not provided with a mirror image of the drive to examine at will and where the expert was expressly ?comfortable? with that arrangement and was afforded 14 months to examine the evidence, ?ample access? was provided

Nature of Case: Child Pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing the pornographic images

United States v. Hornback, 2010 WL 4628944 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s expert was offered the opportunity to examine the seized computer in a private, unmonitored room as often as necessary and to consult with defendant by phone during the examination, but where simultaneous internet access was not provided, the court found that ?ample opportunity? for inspection had been provided and denied defendant?s motion to compel an altered version of the hard drive with actual photographs removed

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Commonwealth v. Suarez-Irizzary, 2010 WL 5312257 (Pa. Comm. Pl. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court upheld the Commonwealth?s request to establish the school zone applicability using measurements from Google Earth upon finding that the measurement was properly authenticated by testimony that the accuracy of the measurement had been verified by comparing Google Earth?s results to a known distance between two points as established by independent, manual measuremen

Nature of Case: Drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Google Earth measurement

Rosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

Key Insight: In an order addressing several discovery disputes court ordered re-production of information downloaded from relevant Blackberry telephones where defendant produced the requested data in hard copy and where the information was not fully readable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from Blackberry telephones

Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)

Key Insight: For failing to abide by its good-faith discovery obligations by withholding from production, without justification, certain relevant ESI and ?willfully fail[ing] to search two important and obvious repositories for responsive ESI?, the court determined that ?substantial monetary fines, payable to Nycomed and to the Clerk of the Court, are appropriate sanctions, as they will adequately advance ?the prophylactic, punitive and remedial rationales? of discovery sanctions? and ordered Glenmark to pay $100,000 to Nycomed ?to cover a portion of its costs? and to pay an additional $25,000 to the Clerk of the Court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chenault v. Dorel Indus., Inc., No. A-08-CA-354-SS, 2010 WL 3064007 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court approved defendant?s recovery of costs related to the creation of an electronic database where the database was utilized to reduce the otherwise recoverable costs of printing the approximately 800,000 pages of emails produced to plaintiffs

Electronic Data Involved: Costs of electronic database created in lieu of printing emails for production

U.S. v. Bortnick, 2010 WL 935482 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the government proposed that expert?s access to hard drive seized from defendant be contingent upon submitting to search of expert?s person and equipment before leaving the Sherriff?s department after each visit, court found the search rendered the drive ?not reasonably available? and ordered the restriction lifted or, if the Sherriff was unwilling or unable to do so, that the drive be made available to defendant?s expert in a ?safe room? at the courthouse under the conditions proposed by defendant

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution related to child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of hard drive seized by police

In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to granted motion to compel production of additional source code where plaintiffs offered only speculation regarding the source code?s relevance and thus failed to meet their burden to establish the source code was ?relevant and necessary?, and where plaintiffs? experts had made no effort to review the source code already in their possession

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ of certiorari and quashed lower court?s order compelling petitioner?s production of her hard drives and SIM card for inspection by respondent where there was no evidence of destruction of data or threat of destruction sufficient to support such an order, where the order did not protect petitioner against disclosure of confidential or privileged materials because petitioner was provided no opportunity to review materials prior to production, and where there were less intrusive means to acquire the data sought

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, cell phone (SIM card)

MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the court ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant?s expenses and fees related to a motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s delayed production of documents previously characterized as unrecoverable due to a damaged backup tape, court denied motion for additional sanctions where plaintiffs argued no prejudice resulted from the delay and where the court found no evidence to justify sanctions beyond those already imposed

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract and intentional inter-ference with economic relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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