Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)
2
Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)
3
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)
4
Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)
5
David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)
6
Whited v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3862717 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2010)
7
Prins v. Dir. of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
8
Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)
9
Rhea v. Washington Dep?t of Corr., 2010 WL 5395009 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2010)
10
County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s search requests were unreasonable and unduly burdensome and where defendant?s proposed ESI search could ?be reasonably expanded to search for relevant information without becoming unduly burdensome?, court ordered the parties to continue negotiating to identify 25 agreed upon search terms to search relevant custodians? reasonably accessible data; court found backup tapes ?not readily accessible because of undue burden or cost? and ordered defendant to run the agreed upon search terms ?only on reasonably accessible sources, such as active and archived data of network computers?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant challenged admission of hard copy images and video reproduced from electronic files on DVD which were copied from hard drives found in defendant?s computer, Supreme Court declined to extend best evidence rule to require admission of the hard drives themselves and, where forensic expert testified to the integrity of the copying process and where testimony was presented that verified the reproductions were accurate representations of the illicit material for which defendant was charged, court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that the evidence was properly admitted

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Images copied from DVDS with in turn were copied from original hard drives

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)

Key Insight: In divorce proceedings, court denied wife?s motion for access to husband?s office hard drive where wife was not entitled to ?unrestricted turnover? of the drive and failed to propose a discover/issue resolution protocol to allow for the protection of privileged and private material but allowed for possible renewal of the motion, which must contain a proper discovery protocol, and provided specific instruction for the proper content of the same

Nature of Case: Matrimonial action/divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Husband’s office hard drive

Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)

Key Insight: For failing to preserve the laptops issued to plaintiffs while working for defendant, the court found defendant was ?at a minimum? negligent and indicated that an adverse inference would be crafted after all the evidence had been received. For ?prolonged delay? in producing relevant emails the court denied terminating sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Electronic Data Involved: Data on laptops, emails

David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to hold defendant in contempt for its unilateral redactions of alleged personal and confidential information but, upon evidence of over-redacting, ordered plaintiffs to identify approximately 3000 documents (a number provided by plaintiffs) to be sent to defendant for verification of proper redacting and for the parties to confer to fashion an appropriate protective with regard to the documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground proprietary or business confidentiality privilege

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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