Case Summaries – Page 247 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Hornback, 2010 WL 4628944 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant?s expert was offered the opportunity to examine the seized computer in a private, unmonitored room as often as necessary and to consult with defendant by phone during the examination, but where simultaneous internet access was not provided, the court found that ?ample opportunity? for inspection had been provided and denied defendant?s motion to compel an altered version of the hard drive with actual photographs removed

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Commonwealth v. Suarez-Irizzary, 2010 WL 5312257 (Pa. Comm. Pl. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court upheld the Commonwealth?s request to establish the school zone applicability using measurements from Google Earth upon finding that the measurement was properly authenticated by testimony that the accuracy of the measurement had been verified by comparing Google Earth?s results to a known distance between two points as established by independent, manual measuremen

Nature of Case: Drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Google Earth measurement

Rosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an order addressing several discovery disputes court ordered re-production of information downloaded from relevant Blackberry telephones where defendant produced the requested data in hard copy and where the information was not fully readable

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from Blackberry telephones

Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For failing to abide by its good-faith discovery obligations by withholding from production, without justification, certain relevant ESI and ?willfully fail[ing] to search two important and obvious repositories for responsive ESI?, the court determined that ?substantial monetary fines, payable to Nycomed and to the Clerk of the Court, are appropriate sanctions, as they will adequately advance ?the prophylactic, punitive and remedial rationales? of discovery sanctions? and ordered Glenmark to pay $100,000 to Nycomed ?to cover a portion of its costs? and to pay an additional $25,000 to the Clerk of the Court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chenault v. Dorel Indus., Inc., No. A-08-CA-354-SS, 2010 WL 3064007 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court approved defendant?s recovery of costs related to the creation of an electronic database where the database was utilized to reduce the otherwise recoverable costs of printing the approximately 800,000 pages of emails produced to plaintiffs

Electronic Data Involved: Costs of electronic database created in lieu of printing emails for production

United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Despite finding Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 did not require the government to identify the evidence upon which it intended to rely at trial where defendants claimed the government had attempted to overwhelm them by providing access to a database containing millions of documents, and despite government?s production of an index to the database and directions to the materials it deemed most relevant, magistrate recommended the government be ordered to provide defendants with an exhibit list and hard copies of the exhibits ten days before trial, for the government to supplement that list as necessary, and for the government to comply in good faith where the government had previously offered to supply the same

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to destroy records and destruction of records

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where issues of material fact existed as to the willfulness of defendant?s destruction of potentially relevant ESI and as to whether such destruction ?disrupted? plaintiff?s case, court denied defendant?s motion for summary judgment as to its claim of spoliation and denied plaintiff?s request for an adverse inference as to claims 1 through 4, but indicated its willingness to entertain a motion for an appropriate jury instruction at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement and related claims, independant cause of action for spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered 4 pages of privileged documents be returned to defendants where the pages were privileged on their face and inadvertently produced (4 pages of privileged material were produced among 2000 pages and the documents were subject to review by three attorneys prior to production) and where counsel immediately sought their return upon discovery of their production; court ordered narrowing of search terms and fewer custodians upon defendants? objection to plaintiffs? proposed scope (including 55 custodians and 50 search terms) where plaintiff failed to respond to the objection within the ten day period provided by the court

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged materials

State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed his conviction and argued the State?s failure to preserve videotape depicting a struggle between police and defendant was a violation of due process, court found the videotape was not subject to production pursuant to Brady absent evidence that it contained ?materially exculpatory evidence?, and that absent evidence of bad faith, defendant could not show a due process violation arising from the destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

One River Place Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 WL 235028 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing the question of whether document imaging costs were recoverable under 28 USC ? 1920, court noted that ?[t]oday?s technologies allow counsel to exchange ?copies? of [documents for use in the case] electronically, reducing time and cost? and that there was no indication that electronic production was more expensive or duplicative of hard copy costs, and held that it ?would not punish [plaintiff] for choosing the more efficient, electronic method of producing costs? and that plaintiff?s document imaging costs were therefore recoverable under the statute

Nature of Case: Claims arising from property damage resulting from Hurrican Katrina

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries