Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)
2
Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)
3
Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)
4
Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)
5
AHF Cmty. Dev., LLC v. City of Dallas, 2009 WL 348190 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2009)
6
McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)
7
In re Tamer, 877 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Surr. Ct. N.Y. 2009)
8
Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)
9
Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)
10
Kravetz v. Paul Rever Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1639736 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2009) (Not for Publication)

Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer, despite plaintiff?s conflicting statements regarding the existence of a contract in 2005 and defendant?s resulting belief that plaintiff created the contract on her computer years later, where court determined the inspection would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiff carried the burden to prove the contract existed in 2005, not defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court endorsed ?middle ground? approach to a determination of the waiver of privilege, as adopted by FRE 502, and ordered the return of privileged and work product documents produced by defendant upon finding that the production was inadvertent, that defendant took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, that counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error and that ?the number and magnitude of the disclosures in light of the overall production weigh[ed] against waiver?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy

Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, as a result of the autofill function in email, defendant mistakenly sent a privileged communication to a third party which was thereafter forwarded to opposing counsel in the litigation, court undertook waiver analysis pursuant to ER 502 and found that privilege was not waived where defendant disclosed the communication inadvertently, where defendant?s reliance on ?a system that had worked in particular way in the past? was reasonable to prevent disclosure, and where defendant?s counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error upon learning of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

AHF Cmty. Dev., LLC v. City of Dallas, 2009 WL 348190 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Where city inadvertently produced privileged documents due to its conversion to new software but then allowed its witness to testify regarding those documents at deposition without objection, court held privilege had been waived and declined to compel the documents? return

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Revenue report from database properly considered as business record under ER 803(6) where report was based on data entered and preserved in database in the regular course of business, where the database was regularly maintained and updated by the company?s accountants, where the accountants had personal knowledge of the information entered into the database, and where the foundation for its admission was provided by a ?qualified witness? familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the database

Nature of Case: Class action arising from alleged violations of Ohio Mortgage Act and common law violations of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Database report

In re Tamer, 877 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Surr. Ct. N.Y. 2009)

Key Insight: Finding electronic production sufficient to satisfy the relevant statute requiring production of documents as kept in the regular course of business or organized to correspond to the category of the request, court granted objectants motion to compel trustees to accept production in electronic form and not hard copy and ordered such production to be accompanied by an index identifying the document produced in response to each demand and the electronic file where the document was stored

Nature of Case: Contested accounting proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Production of documents in electronic form

Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting plaintiff?s motion to strike defendants? affidavit and attached emails where emails were not properly authenticated; appellate court found defendants? reliance on Willis v. Hill, 116 Ga. App. 848 (1967) to appeal the trial court?s ruling was misplaced where Willis held that ?”[u]pon production of copies pursuant to a notice to produce, the producing party admits the correctness of the copies and further proof is unnecessary in order for the moving party[, i.e., the requesting party,] to introduce them into evidence? but where in the present case the emails sought to be admitted were produced by defendants, i.e. the party seeking their admission, and thus Willis was inapplicable

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, collect on open account

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where audio tape of council meeting was lost despite duty to preserve and where defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs? allegation that the tape was erased or replaced beyond an unsupported assertion of inadvertence, court precluded defendants from relying on occurrences at the meeting and ordered an adverse inferences to the jury; where evidence indicated computers subject to preservation were defragged repeatedly, and perhaps erased intentionally, and where defendants failed to preserve 6 hard drives despite agreeing do so, court ordered jury to be informed of failure to preserve, that defendants were precluded from arguing that the absence of evidence supported their contentions, and that the jury would be given permission to draw an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape, hard drives

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