Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)
2
Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)
3
Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
4
Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)
5
R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)
6
Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)
7
Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)
8
Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)
9
Grey v. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 2010 WL 3526478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2010)
10
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010)

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions against remaining defendant where defendant was not responsible for the destruction of the relevant servers and the district court thus ?balanced the lack of any assertion of wrongdoing by [defendant] with the harm caused to [plaintiff?s] claims? and where Ohio law provided a remedy for a party injured by another party?s spoliation of evidence, namely a claim for the tort of spoliation (which plaintiff apparently asserted against the actual spoliating party)

Nature of Case: Copyright/trade secret infringement, intentional spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers containing relevant ESI

Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: GPS data

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

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