Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)
2
Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)
3
HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)
4
VocalSpace, LLC v. Lorenso, 2010 WL 5247451 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2010)
5
Hunsaker v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 2010 WL 5463244 (D. Kan. Dec. 29, 2010)
6
Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)
7
People v. Flores, 941 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
8
Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 WL 597388 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010)
9
Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., 2010 WL 2951871 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)
10
Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Key Insight: For CFO?s intentional destruction of evidence to defeat litigation despite a duty to preserve, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and imposed a $100,000 fine and found that more drastic sanctions were not warranted where the resulting prejudice was mitigated by the availability of all the defendants and other witnesses for questioning

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where defendant Highwall breached its obligation to preserve information related to the underlying royalty dispute following receipt of a letter which triggered the duty to preserve and ordered that discovery be re-opened and that defendant Highwall bear the costs but also found that the duty to preserve documents related to the development of allegedly infringing software was not triggered until the filing of the complaint and that no spoliation had occurred; court found purchaser of Highwall?s assets during pendency of the royalty dispute had no duty to preserve where the software at issue was excluded from purchaser?s acquisition

Nature of Case: Royalty dispute, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was required to produce its patent counsel?s relevant files and where its counsel retained hard copies of relevant emails but admitted to the destruction of electronic copies in accordance with the firm?s email policy, despite knowledge of the relevant dispute between plaintiff and defendant, the court denied a motion for sanctions where there was no evidence of bad faith in the destruction (because counsel acted pursuant to a ?general policy applying to all legal matters?) and where, because hard copies were preserved, there was no showing of prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

VocalSpace, LLC v. Lorenso, 2010 WL 5247451 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, despite a clear duty to preserve, defendant transferred relevant data to a new server and then erased and sold the old servers, and where, as a result, ?log files? were lost, the court found that the evidence ?falls short? of evidencing bad faith and declined to impose ?death penalty sanctions? but ordered that the admission of evidence of defendants? preservation efforts and evidence destruction was appropriate and ordered that evidence of the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the servers would be allowed at trial

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “log files”

Hunsaker v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 2010 WL 5463244 (D. Kan. Dec. 29, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant sought leave to serve a subpoena upon a public library seeking information related to plaintiff?s internet use to confirm his alleged job seeking activities, the court found the subpoena overly broad on its face and found that even a more limited subpoena would impose a burden and expense outweighed by the likely benefit; court found proposed subpoenas to internet job search sites (e.g. Monster) would result in an undue burden in light of the expansive definition of document, but that defendant would be allowed to serve the subpoenas if the list of ?definitions? was removed

Nature of Case: Violations of ADEA and ADA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to online job searches

Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants? Motion to Dismiss, but ?to ensure that discovery [was] proportional to the specific circumstances of the case, and to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action,? ordered phased discovery and (citing the court?s Case Management Procedures, the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, and the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation) ordered that the parties cooperate to prepare a phased discovery schedule

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortuous interference with business and civil conspiracy arising from dispute over contents of dog-pedigree software

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

People v. Flores, 941 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Case was reversed and remanded where trial court erred in admitting videotape that was admittedly altered as substantive evidence (as opposed to demonstrative evidence, for which the foundation would have been sufficient) where ?an adequate foundation must show that the original has been preserved without change, addition, or deletion and that, if a copy is introduced into evidence, there must be a cogent explanation of any copying such that the court is satisfied that during the copying process there were no changes, additions, or deletions.?

Nature of Case: Driving with revoked or suspended license

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape made by witness

Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 WL 597388 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of ESI in native format because the motion was untimely filed but went on to find that defendants? production of ESI in .PDF format was reasonable absent plaintiffs? request for production in native format and that compelling re-production would prejudice defendants where the metadata produced would likely necessitate additional expert involvement and discovery resulting in an adjustment to the case management schedule

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., 2010 WL 2951871 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to identify the authors and recipients of all documents listed on its privilege log and warned that failure or inability to do so would result in waiver; where defendant failed to separately log all messages within email chains, the court recognized a split in authorities regarding the need to itemize each message separately and concluded that in this case, the ?better approach? would be to require defendant to supplement its log with each message itemized

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged email

Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered to produce hard copy ?job files? for non-city projects as an alternative to conducting key word searching of 25 custodians to identify emails related to non-city projects but where defendant objected that hard copy was less searchable and would not contain all relevant emails, court denied defendant?s motion to compel keyword searching and production of ESI citing the more than two month delay since the issue was first raised, the close proximity of trial, and the court?s inability to determine the relevance of the 188 proposed search terms and ordered plaintiff?s production of hard copy files

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

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