Case Summaries – Page 237 – Electronic Discovery Law

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Meridian Fin. Advisors Ltd. v. Pence, 2010 WL 2772840 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the receiver?s failure to disclose the existence and specific location of relevant emails by the required initial disclosure deadline pursuant to Rule 26, the court imposed sanctions and precluded the receiver?s use of such ESI at trial; for the receiver?s failure to disclose its access to defendants? privileged communications (including accessing, through the actions of a third party, the personal and privileged emails of one defendant by accessing his personal email accounts without his knowledge), the court imposed monetary sanctions, including payment of the costs of investigating and bringing the motion as well as payment of one defendant?s attorney?s fees during the time his co-defendant provided the receiver with access to his privileged communications

Nature of Case: Receiver filed suit against former officers and employees for myriad of claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, civil conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Whited v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3862717 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For plaintiff?s willful and bad faith violations of the court?s orders which resulted in prejudice to the defendants, including unexplained delays in production and intentional deletion of files on computers which the court had ordered no one to use, and where the court had previously warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, court ordered dismissal of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Cross claims arising from insurance payments for home health care

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Prins v. Dir. of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the trial court granted spoliation sanctions despite failing to find that the loss was intentional or in bad faith (where the officer failed to preserve the relevant video footage as the result of failing to mark the right ?checkbox? in the system) and where Missouri law requires ?evidence of intentional destruction? or ?evidence that the spoliator destroyed the evidence ?under circumstances manifesting fraud, deceit, or bad faith?, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new hearing

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage of defendant’s stop and arrest

Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena served upon Yahoo! for the production of emails from defendant?s account where the Stored Communications Act generally prohibits such disclosure absent a specifically-enumerated exception and where subpoena in a civil action is not such an exception

Nature of Case: Claims arising from prisoner’s death

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from defendant’s Yahoo! account

Rhea v. Washington Dep?t of Corr., 2010 WL 5395009 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found that defendant had failed to ask all employees with potentially relevant documents to search for and produce them, that some employees who were asked to search had not complied, and that employees who had complied failed to search for documents in all possible locations and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching and production; court granted motion to compel defendants to provide a complete answer to an interrogatory seeking detailed information on steps taken to locate responsive materials and ordered defendant to ?certify that all employees with potentially responsive documents searched all locations where such documents are typically stored in paper or electronic format?

Nature of Case: Claims that defendant refused to provide necessary medical care or accommodate plaintiff’s disability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Susquehanna Commercial Finance, Inc. v. Vascular Res., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2012, 2010 WL 4973317 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?

Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data

Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Dev. Co., 2010 WL 2034699 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Catagory:Case Summaries