Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Rahman v. The Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 773344 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009)
2
Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)
3
In re Direct Sw., Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 2009 WL 2461716 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009)
4
Plan Pros Inc. v. Torczon, 2009 WL 3063017 (Sept. 18, 2009)
5
Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)
6
Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009
7
Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc., 2009 WL 4682668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2009)
8
Sony BMG Music Entm?t v. Doe, 2009 WL 5252606 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2009)
9
Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)
10
Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)

Rahman v. The Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 773344 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s objections to defendants? production in pdf format ?without merit? where plaintiff failed to specify the preferred format of production and where absent such specification ?pdf format?is presumptively a ?reasonably useable form?? and similarly dismissed plaintiff?s substantive complaints regarding the production upon its determination that there was sufficient information for plaintiff?s expert to perform an analysis; court also declined to reconsider denial of spoliation sanctions in light of ambiguous deposition testimony regarding a possible delay in the implementation of a litigation hold and noted the absence of evidence that the gap in production was attributable to such delay

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: As sanction for defendants late production of relevant ESI and forensic images of relevant hard drives in violation of the court?s order, court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from introducing at trial any documents untimely produced or from presenting witnesses plaintiff first became aware of only in defendants? untimely disclosures; court also ordered defendants to pay plaintiff?s attorney fees and costs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic images of hard drives

In re Direct Sw., Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 2009 WL 2461716 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009)

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed about whether defendants were required to search for ESI using plaintiffs? search terms or using their own, court denied motion for reconsideration and upheld prior order requiring defendants to ?certify that they conducted a complete search using the terms found on plaintiff?s search term list? despite defendants? claims that using such terms would ?produce many false hits and require them to incur costs of $100,000 to produce the ESI?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Plan Pros Inc. v. Torczon, 2009 WL 3063017 (Sept. 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production of financial information in its original Quickbooks format where the information was previously produced following conversion to .xls format which resulted in the loss of metadata and where defendants failed to argue that production in the original format (the form or forms in which it was ordinarily maintained) was not possible

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Financial ESI

Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)

Key Insight: Where third-party presented evidence that responding to subpoena would require searching hundreds of locations, would require the restoration of back up tapes, and would take ?over two years to accomplish and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,? court modified subpoena to narrow scope of the request, but ordered production of relevant documents, ?even if they [were] not reasonably accessible?

Nature of Case: Allegations of wrongful termination in furtherance of political scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff?s affirmative claims dismissed, for plaintiff to bear all costs reasonably incurred in connection with defendant?s efforts to obtain discovery of plaintiff?s emails, and that the jury be provided an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff engaged in egregious discovery violations, including incomplete productions, installation and use of software intended to delete relevant emails from his computer, and misrepresentations to the court, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc., 2009 WL 4682668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve preservation subpoena on third-party prior to the Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff showed good cause for such a subpoena, including the potential relevance of the documents and the danger of spoliation where the company had been ?dormant? since 2006, and where the subpoena was narrowly tailored to prevent spoliation and did not impose an immediate obligation to produce documents

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sony BMG Music Entm?t v. Doe, 2009 WL 5252606 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Considering the five factors established in Sony Music Ent. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556(S.D.N.Y. 2004) to determine whether an anonymous defendant?s identity is shielded from discovery by the first amendment (in circumstances such as those presented here), court denied a motion to quash the subpoena seeking anonymous defendant?s identity where plaintiffs made a concrete showing of a prima facie claim, where the subpoena was narrowly drawn and sought limited information, where there was no alternate means of identifying the defendant, where the information was necessary to effect service on the defendant and where ?defendant has little expectation of privacy in allegedly distributing music over the internet without permission of the copyright holder?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of alleged John Doe infringer

Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)

Key Insight: Upon in camera review of all documents produced to plaintiff by Facebook pursuant to subpoena, and in response to plaintiff?s objection to producing all such documents on the grounds that many were irrelevant and immaterial, court found ?no meaningful distinction? between the pages produced and the pages withheld and stated that ?Facebook usage depicts a snapshot of the user?s relationship and state of mind at the time of the content?s posting? and that ?relevance is more in the eye of the beholder? such that production should not be limited to plaintiff?s determination of what may be ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered the production of all documents produced by Facebook to defendants, rather than the smaller subset previously provided

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged bullying and harassment of private school student

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was ordered to produce a relevant recording and instead submitted an affidavit indicating that after a ?good faith search? she determined she was not in possession of the recording and had been mistaken in her representations to the contrary, the court granted defendant?s motion and ordered evidentiary sanctions for violating the court?s order to produce the recording after noting plaintiff?s failure to assert the possibility that she was not in possession of the recording prior to the entry of such an order; where plaintiff destroyed her handwritten notes after transcribing portions thereof, the court granted defendant?s request for an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recording, handwritten notes

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