Case Summaries – Page 236 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for sanctions where, despite defendant?s failure to preserve all relevant portions of a surveillance video tape, the court found the tape would not have revealed information necessary to establish defendant?s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition at issue and thus, there was no prejudice to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Griffin v. State, 995 A.2d 791(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding ?no reason why social media profiles may not be circumstantially authenticated in the same manner as other forms of electronic content – by their content and context?, court found that a paper copy of a MySpace profile page was properly authenticated by the presence of a photograph of the alleged owner of the profile on the printed page, the presence of unique identifiers such as her date of birth, number of children, and use of the admitted nickname of her boyfriend, ?Boozy?, and by the testimony of an officer that he believed the profile belonged to the alleged owner for the reasons previously listed (presence of unique identifiers, etc.)

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: MySpace profile page

Dutch v. United States, 997 A.2d 685 (D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found admission of two documents derived from information stored on computers as ?business records? was proper where evidence established the data was created and stored in the relevant information system at the time of the transaction at issued, where the data was created and used by merchants in usual course of their business, and where sufficient testimony was presented to ?give adequate reason to trust the authenticity of the documents?

Nature of Case: Conviction for attempted uttering (cashing a forged check)

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy business records “derived from information stored on computers”

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For ?defendant?s recalcitrance in meeting its discovery obligations?, namely refusing to produce certain discovery on the basis of foreign secrecy laws (a justification previously rejected by the court), the court imposed severe sanctions, including adverse inference instructions and an order precluding the presentation of certain evidence

Nature of Case: Knowingly and purposefully aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist organizations

Electronic Data Involved: Foreign banking information

Catagory:Case Summaries