Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)
2
Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)
3
Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)
4
Grey v. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 2010 WL 3526478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2010)
5
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010)
6
Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)
7
Streit v. Elec. Mobility Controls, LLC, 2010 WL 4687797 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010)
8
Revello v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4967968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2010)
9
In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010)
10
Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: GPS data

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for leave to seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference for the purpose of identifying the unknown Doe defendants by allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the relevant Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but required the ISPs to provide written notice to the subscribers in question to provide them an opportunity to move to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

Streit v. Elec. Mobility Controls, LLC, 2010 WL 4687797 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s multiple attempts at starting plaintiff?s car following the underlying accident resulted in multiple ?blocks? of data being overwritten, the court denied sanctions absent evidence that the loss was intentional (where the imposition of sanctions required a showing of bad faith) and because the relevant ?event? data was also recorded in alternative source that was fully preserved and plaintiff offered no evidence that the relevant data was recorded only to the lost data blocks and not the available alternative source

Nature of Case: Personal injury/product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Black box data from automobile

Revello v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4967968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Court quashed order directing production of defendant?s source code where, despite claiming misappropriation of its trade secret, plaintiff declined to produce its own source code and thus ?neither identified with reasonable particularity the nature of its claimed trade secret nor established that it exists? and was therefore not entitled to the source code it sought from the defendant

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secret

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Where as the result of a finding of willful spoliation the district court ordered an adverse inference that established Oracle?s CEO?s knowledge of any material facts that Plaintiffs were able to establish, but where plaintiffs were nonetheless defeated at summary judgment and thereafter appealed the order arguing that the inference should have been sufficient to defeat a challenge to the insufficiency of their prima facie case, the appellate court affirmed the holding of the district court noting that, ?in light of the enormous record developed in this case, the only conceivable benefit of Defendant?s spoliation was the possibility of disclaiming Ellison?s knowledge of any damaging facts underlying the purported fraud? and that the district court?s sanction was ?carefully fashioned to deny Defendants that benefit?

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: emaisl, ESI

Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?

Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI

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