Case Summaries – Page 245 – Electronic Discovery Law

Smith v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4641157 (D. Idaho Nov. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel ?event description? information contained in defendant?s database to correspond with a previously produced spreadsheet regarding past claims and rejected defendant?s objections of irrelevance and undue burden, particularly in light of testimony which indicated the relative ease of collection and production based on the efforts previously undertaken in creating the related spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained in database

Living Scriptures, Inc. v. Doe(s), 2010 WL 4687679 (D. Utah. Nov. 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to discover the identity of the alleged copyright infringers for the purposes of commencing litigation and for seeking a preliminary injunction noting that courts have ?routinely? allowed such discovery and that the information sought was ?transitory in nature? and necessary to initiate the action

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Does’ identities

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Medcorp, Inc. v. Ponpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (June 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where special master determined spoliation was ?willful in the sense that ?Plaintiff was aware of his responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so? and thus ordered an adverse inference and for each party to bear half of defendant?s attorneys? fees and costs, magistrate judge affirmed the adverse inference upon determining it was the least harsh sanction that would provide an adequate remedy but vacated the award of half of defendant?s fees and, upon determining a reasonable amount, ordered plaintiff to pay the amount of $89,395.88

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, No. 09-00228-KD-N, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider its prior order directing plaintiff to produce certain hard drives and other data storage devices for forensic inspection where plaintiff failed to establish that such production was prohibited by Indian law and where plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the court?s prior determination that plaintiff?s behavior ?cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document produced? by plaintiff such that actual production of the devices was warranted

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, data storage devices

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Victor v. R.M. Lawler, 2010 WL 521118 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court deferred judgment regarding motion for spoliation sanctions for missing video surveillance tapes of the relevant ?cell extraction? pending defendant?s production of prison policies regarding the proper preservation of such video where the court regarded the ?question of spoliation? to be ?closely intertwined with the issue of whether the defendants followed their own operations procedures in preserving evidence?

Nature of Case: Prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of non-email ESI in native format where defendant previously produced the information sought in hard copy, reasoning that native production is not required by the rules and that the documents, previously produced in hard copy, were in a sufficiently usable format absent a showing that the metadata would ?yield an answer that the hard copy will not?; court also recognized obligation to seek ?just, speedy, and inexpensive? adjudication and to limit burdensome discovery where defendant represented significant hardship to re-produce in native format

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shlala v. Catholic Health & Human Servs., 2010 WL 1655869 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 23, 2010)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff?s claim of fraudulent concealment arising from the destruction of the hard drive plaintiff utilized while employed by defendant where plaintiff failed to specifically request the preservation or production of the computer?s contents until three years after he was terminated (despite filing a complaint and requesting discovery) and where plaintiff failed to establish any of the five elements necessary to support an action for fraudulent concealment, including failing to establish defendants? duty to preserve, the materiality of the evidence destroyed, and the inability to obtain the evidence from another source, among other things

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive utilized by plaintiff while employed by defendant

Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443 (D. Conn. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel forensic imaging of defendants? computers and electronic media devices by court-appointed, neutral forensic examiner upon showing that defendants likely misappropriated proprietary information from plaintiff, that at least one defendant breached his duty to preserve by discarding a relevant laptop, and where there was a ?sufficient nexus? between plaintiffs? claims and its need obtain the requested forensic images; court split cost 80% to defendant 20% to plaintiff citing defendant?s ?culpability in necessitating the expense? and set out the imaging protocol to be employed by an agreed upon expert

Nature of Case: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, electronic media devices

Catagory:Case Summaries