Case Summaries – Page 243 – Electronic Discovery Law

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Martinez v. Rycars Constr., LLC, 2010 WL 4117668 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to quash subpoena to defendant?s telecommunication vendor seeking production of any and all cell phone records, emails, and text messages sent between January 2008 and the present for the purpose of discovering evidence of defendant?s drug use where the request was overly broad and potentially cumulative; court noted that a more targeted request may have been more appropriate but still questioned how the provider would be able to ?sift? the data to identify specifically relevant communications

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Communication data from cell phone service provider

Gutman v. Klein, 2010 WL 4975554 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for sanctions for allegedly ?producing a non-business-related hard drive in place of a hard drive they were supposed to produce? where defendants delayed too long in bringing the motion by waiting more than four years after the events in question and nearly two years after the court invited such a motion; addressing briefly the merits of defendants? claims, the court found the argument to be ?flawed? where defendants mischaracterized the court?s order for production and plaintiff?s testimony regarding the computers in his office

Nature of Case: Accusations of fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Squeo v. The Norwalk Hosp. Assoc., 2010 WL 5573755 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs brought claims related to their son?s suicide and objected to defendants? request for production of their computer for forensic examination following their admission that their son had rarely used their computer for purposes of checking his email, the court ruled the order sought by defendants was ?too broad? because it was unlimited as to time or subject matter and because defendants failed to show that anything stored on the computer would actually be relevant to the case

Nature of Case: Claims arising from son’s suicide following discharge from the hospital

Electronic Data Involved: Parent’s computer

State v. Berke, 992 A.2d 1290 (Me. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Videotape depicting defendant abusing his victims was properly authenticated for admission as evidence pursuant to M.R. Evid. 901 where defendant was repeatedly depicted in the tape, where ?the largely sequential nature of the events depicted? supported the inference that the tape was not tampered with, and where the state introduced testimony from the victim and her family to establish that the victims in the tape were the victims referenced in the indictment

Nature of Case: Criminal indictment for sexual exploitation of a minor and related charges

In re Sawstop Cases, 2010 WL 2483316 (D. Mass. June 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs? production of cartridges containing relevant data (?akin to a ?black box??) that were relied upon by their expert in forming his opinions but found both parties proposed protective measures insufficient and ordered defendants to designate an expert or experts to review the cartridges, restricted access to the cartridges to defendants? expert(s) and counsel and their employees ?whose functions required access to the cartridge or cartridge information?, and ordered that each expert sign an agreement that they would not seek to develop technology similar to that at issue

Electronic Data Involved: Cartridge data “akin to a black box”

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 4004164 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Based upon suspicious timing of the disappearance of ESI, the court inferred that evidence had been destroyed in bad faith by a person who knew that it would ?very well reveal information Defendants did not want revealed? and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury at trial, that plaintiff should be permitted to amend its claims to add a claim for exemplary damages based on the adverse inference, that defendants pay plaintiff?s costs and fees, and that defendants make unredacted mirror images of the hard drives of each employee of the corporate defendant at defendants? expense, to be delivered to plaintiff by a date certain; hard drives were covered by a previously entered protective order

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Dana Ltd. v. American Axle & Mfg. Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 5394885 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to clarify the agreed preliminary injunction order where, following entry of the agreement, defendant determined that the broad language addressing preservation created a cost prohibitive obligation that was broader than necessary to protect the plaintiff and agreed to enter an order reflecting defendant?s proposed revision which was more specific regarding what must be preserved

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 502721 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants bore the burden of persuasion when asserting that ESI was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost and where defendants? supported their claim of inaccessibility with only one declaration which lacked specific information regarding defendants? storage practices, the number of back-up or archival systems that would need to be searched, or defendants? capability to retrieve information from those back-up or archival systems, the court denied defendants? Motion for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Commc?ns Integrated Sys., L.P., 2010 WL 1891779 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, prior to entry of judgment, defendant moved for sanctions of dismissal or a new trial due to plaintiff?s failure to produce highly relevant internal emails during discovery, and where the factors for a new trial were met, court declined to order dismissal but ordered a new trial and thus set aside the $37.3 million verdict in favor of plaintiff

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Catagory:Case Summaries