Case Summaries – Page 244 – Electronic Discovery Law

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel non-party to produce email communications which were in the possession of a party to the action but not subject to production because of party agreement: ?This court will not require Motorola to produce e-mail communications that Vizio and LG purposefully decided not to seek in the underlying lawsuit.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Subpoena to Wisconsin Energy Corp., 2010 WL 715429 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court quashed non-party subpoena upon finding it unduly burdensome where non-party estimated the cost of compliance in excess of $1,000,000 and argued that the information sought was irrelevant and cumulative of information available to the plaintiff from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Stochastic modeling reports

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Habtegiorgis v. OIC of Washington, 2010 WL 2232142 (E.D. Wash. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff?s requests ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce certain ESI and to allow plaintiffs to search defendant?s server and network using the terms of plaintiff?s choosing and ordered that defendant provide information regarding the creation of backup disks and other evidence; court granted plaintiff?s motion for the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Howell Educ. Assoc. MEA/NEA v. Howell Board of Educ., 2010 WL 290515 (Jan. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Reversing the trial court, appellate court found personal emails retained on public school?s email system were not public records and therefore not subject to disclosure pursuant to Michigan?s Freedom of Information Act; court also concluded that violation of an acceptable use policy that does not expressly provide that emails are subject to FOIA does not render personal emails subject to disclosure pursuant to FOIA

Nature of Case: FOIA

Electronic Data Involved: Personal emails

Alexander v. Archuleta County, 2010 WL 363390 (D. Colo. Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant communications despite a court order and offered no explanation for the delay and where the court determined the delayed production resulted in prejudice to the defendants, that the prejudice could not be cured by additional discovery, and that plaintiff?s discovery conduct was ?in bad faith and willful?, court ordered two affidavits in support of plaintiff?s response to summary judgment stricken and prohibited plaintiff from introducing those witnesses? testimony at trial and for plaintiff to pay defendant?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of Am., 2010 WL 743663 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought discovery regarding similar insurance policies, claims and lawsuits of other insureds, court found the information ?discoverable? and rejected defendant?s claims of undue burden based on alleged inability to conduct an electronic search citing a prior court decision (involving defendant and similar claims of burden) for the proposition that plaintiff would not be denied discovery because of defendant?s election ?to have inadequate mens [sic] of accessing data?

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 WL 1286622 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find County employees culpable for spoliation of ESI, but ordered monetary sanctions against the County for negligently failing to adequately preserve ESI and declined harsher sanctions where many documents were produced in hard copy and thus the resulting prejudice was unclear; court?s analysis of culpability included recognition that the alleged spoliation occurred in 2003-2004, during a time when the law of preservation of ESI was not fully developed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from denial of mass gathering permit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Maldonado v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2010 WL 1980319 (D. Kan. May 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion for a protective order preventing disclosure of the video of defendant?s train colliding with plaintiffs? car where defendant?s concerns about video manipulation or commercial exploitation was unwarranted and unsupported by evidence beyond speculation; court ordered production of event recorder data for a relevant time period and, because of the need for proprietary software to analyze the data, ordered defendant to either secure permission for plaintiff to utilize the software independently and produce the data and software outright or make the data and software available at a mutually agreeable time and place for plaintiff?s evaluation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from train vs. car collision

Electronic Data Involved: Video of collision & event recorder data and related software

United States v. Laurent, 2010 WL 2404419 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Catagory:Case Summaries