Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1135781 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)
2
State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)
3
Board of Trs. Sheet Metal Workers Nat?l Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Mich. 2010)
4
Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)
5
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)
6
Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage, Ltd., 2010 WL 3931100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010)
7
In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)
8
Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2010 WL 5395716 (6th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)
9
Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)
10
Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 3087472 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010)

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

In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought a protective order to preclude discovery of a certain category of information, court denied their motion for a myriad of reasons, including rejecting arguments of undue burden and expense where the arguments were ?largely conclusory and unsupported? and where plaintiffs evidence actually established that the discovery could be reasonably undertaken as the result of work done while responding to other requests and reasoned that while responding would ?take time?, it would not be an ?inordinate? amount

Nature of Case: Price fixing, market-allocation conspiracies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to criminal investigation of some plaintiffs

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2010 WL 5395716 (6th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants produced a CD containing responsive ESI, including links to relevant graphic images which plaintiff viewed, but where the links eventually ?expired? and the images could no longer be seen and where defendants thereafter refused to produce printed copies of the previously produced advertisements, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant evidence in his possession but failed to take steps to preserve the images for future use

Nature of Case: Violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Expired links to relevant images

Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where production of defendants? general ledger was necessary because there was no suitable alternative to provide the information, but where defendants? counsel asserted that such production would require ?hundreds of hours? and involve great expense, court noted defendants failure to produce any details in support of its assertion and that plaintiff was willing to bear the reasonable costs and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: General ledger in electronic format

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 3087472 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling electronic production of defendants? general ledger and specifically rejected defendants? Rule 34 argument that because plaintiff failed to state the form of production, it could produce in hard copy, where defendants failed to specify a particular form of production in their response, where defendants failed to timely raise the Rule 34 issue (despite filing several motions discussing production of the ledger), and where defendants also failed to produce the evidence in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form as is required by the rule; a Motion to Stay this order was thereafter denied, See Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage 2010 WL 3218386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2010)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

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