Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)
2
People v. Flores, 941 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
3
Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 WL 597388 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010)
4
Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., 2010 WL 2951871 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)
5
Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)
6
Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)
7
Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)
8
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1135781 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)
9
State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)
10
Board of Trs. Sheet Metal Workers Nat?l Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants? Motion to Dismiss, but ?to ensure that discovery [was] proportional to the specific circumstances of the case, and to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action,? ordered phased discovery and (citing the court?s Case Management Procedures, the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, and the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation) ordered that the parties cooperate to prepare a phased discovery schedule

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortuous interference with business and civil conspiracy arising from dispute over contents of dog-pedigree software

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

People v. Flores, 941 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Case was reversed and remanded where trial court erred in admitting videotape that was admittedly altered as substantive evidence (as opposed to demonstrative evidence, for which the foundation would have been sufficient) where ?an adequate foundation must show that the original has been preserved without change, addition, or deletion and that, if a copy is introduced into evidence, there must be a cogent explanation of any copying such that the court is satisfied that during the copying process there were no changes, additions, or deletions.?

Nature of Case: Driving with revoked or suspended license

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape made by witness

Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 WL 597388 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of ESI in native format because the motion was untimely filed but went on to find that defendants? production of ESI in .PDF format was reasonable absent plaintiffs? request for production in native format and that compelling re-production would prejudice defendants where the metadata produced would likely necessitate additional expert involvement and discovery resulting in an adjustment to the case management schedule

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., 2010 WL 2951871 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to identify the authors and recipients of all documents listed on its privilege log and warned that failure or inability to do so would result in waiver; where defendant failed to separately log all messages within email chains, the court recognized a split in authorities regarding the need to itemize each message separately and concluded that in this case, the ?better approach? would be to require defendant to supplement its log with each message itemized

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged email

Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered to produce hard copy ?job files? for non-city projects as an alternative to conducting key word searching of 25 custodians to identify emails related to non-city projects but where defendant objected that hard copy was less searchable and would not contain all relevant emails, court denied defendant?s motion to compel keyword searching and production of ESI citing the more than two month delay since the issue was first raised, the close proximity of trial, and the court?s inability to determine the relevance of the 188 proposed search terms and ordered plaintiff?s production of hard copy files

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld ruling that copies of website attached to affidavit attempting to establish contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction were not authenticated and therefore inadmissible where affiant asserted that the pages were copies of defendant?s website but failed to present evidence showing the website was created by defendant or that the statements in the printouts were made by persons authorized to speak on defendant?s behalf; court noted that ?self-authenticating? provisions in Evidence Code ?operates to establish only that a computer?s print function has worked properly. The presumption does not operate to establish the accuracy of the printed information.?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of patient while in nursing facility

Electronic Data Involved: Printed pages from website

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.