Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In re Hecker, 2010 WL 654151 (Bankr. D. Minn. Feb. 23, 2010)
2
State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)
3
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1135781 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)
4
State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)
5
Board of Trs. Sheet Metal Workers Nat?l Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Mich. 2010)
6
Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)
7
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)
8
Fleming v. Escort, Inc., 2010 WL 3833995 (D. Idaho Sept. 24, 2010)
9
State v. Absher, 2010 WL 3860501 (N.C. App. Ct. Oct. 5, 2010)
10
United States v. Knowles, 623 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010)

In re Hecker, 2010 WL 654151 (Bankr. D. Minn. Feb. 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Where debtor committed numerous discovery violations including making misrepresentations to the court regarding his possession of relevant ESI and the completeness of his productions, among other things, and where debtor ?intentionally withheld relevant, admissible evidence in order to delay and obfuscate?, court granted plaintiff?s motion for default judgment after finding that ?no lesser sanction would result in defendant?s compliance?

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s dismissal of charges related to defendant?s alleged possession of child pornography where FBI refused to follow the trial court?s order to produce a copy of the relevant hard drive to defendant?s expert, pursuant to the terms of a protective order, and where defendant made a ?substantial showing? that reproduction of the drive was required for the effective investigation of his defense because the FBI?s proffered solution of allowing defendant?s expert to analyze the drive at the FBI?s offices did not properly address defendant?s concerns about the privacy of his expert?s work or the deprivation of the expert?s references and resource which were not available at the proposed location

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1135781 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing several objections to the magistrate?s order compelling production of data from non-parties, court held that despite ?minimal? showing of relevance, magistrate did not err in ordering production of data where magistrate weighed the relevance of the data against the burden alleged and ordered appropriate steps to reduce the burden, including limiting the review of documents to those hit by a small set of search terms, waiving respondents? obligations to produce a privilege log, and allowing one respondent to search only its central server rather than 75 individual hard drives following that respondents? showing of undue burden; court rejected petitioner?s objections to the measures taken to reduce the non-parties? burdens

Nature of Case: Litigation surround California’s Proposition 8

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s forensic expert?s access to the hard drives seized from defendant was limited by protective order which allowed access only in a county building, using county equipment, the Supreme Court affirmed reversal of defendant?s conviction for 20 counts of possession of child pornography on the grounds that he was denied meaningful access to the hard drives and held that the appropriate test ?under these circumstances? was the ??overwhelming untainted evidence test? to demine whether a trial court?s erroneous ruling requires reversal?

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography and related charges

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives seized from defendant

Board of Trs. Sheet Metal Workers Nat?l Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

Key Insight: Considering the large volume of materials produced, defendants? efforts to review materials prior to their production (including using 16 review associates supervised by two senior associates), and the complicated nature of certain privilege issues (including the number of law firms implicated in the relevant correspondence), court found no waiver of privilege resulting from the inadvertent production of 184 documents and denied plaintiffs? motion for an order invalidating defendant?s claims of privilege

Nature of Case: Claims arising under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Absher, 2010 WL 3860501 (N.C. App. Ct. Oct. 5, 2010)

Key Insight: Where police department failed to preserve video surveillance footage containing images of the alleged assault at issue despite a specific written request for preservation by defendants? counsel and instead altered the tape to remove significant portions and then destroyed the original, superior court did not err in dismissing the charges against defendants because of the irreparable prejudice caused by the loss of the video tape

Nature of Case: Criminal/Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

United States v. Knowles, 623 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Where, ?in order to admit physical evidence, the possibility of misidentification or alteration must be ?eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonably probability?? and where the authenticity of the DVD showed at trial (which was a copy of a copy of the original videotape) was supported in various ways, including the testimony of a witness who had viewed the content of all copies of the DVD and original tape that the content was the same, the testimony of the agent responsible for creating the copy used in the courtroom, and testimony from other witnesses that the content of the tape depicted actual events, the court determined that the trial court did not err by admitting the DVD into evidence and affirmed defendant?s conviction

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of minor

Electronic Data Involved: DVD admitted into evidence

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