Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wash. App. 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
2
U.S. v. Dunning, 2009 WL 2815739 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2009)
3
In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2009 WL 3706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)
4
Palisades Collection, LLC v. Kedik, 890 N.Y.S. 2d 230, 67 A.D. 3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
5
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Boland, 2009 WL 2424448 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)
6
In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3443563 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009)
7
Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)
8
Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)
9
Sanders v. Kohler, 2009 WL 4067265 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 20, 2009)
10
Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of Am., 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009)

Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wash. App. 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Court of appeals vacated (in part) judgment of trial court and ruled former statute ?does not exempt disclosure of personal email addresses used by elected officials to discuss city business? and that plaintiff was entitled to the requested email messages without the personal email addresses redacted; court also held that there was no express obligation to produce email records in electronic format, but that statutory duty to ?provide the fullest assistance? obligated trial court to consider reasonableness and feasibility of electronic production on remand; redacted emails need not be scanned and produced electronically

Nature of Case: Complaint pursuant to Public Disclosure Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses, emails

U.S. v. Dunning, 2009 WL 2815739 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of ?information that is located in the unallocated or deleted space? of the relevant hard drive where defendant was in possession of ?precisely the same images of the hard drives? that the plaintiff possessed, where plaintiff was not in possession, custody, or control of information not already produced to defendant, and where ?Defendant [was] just as capable as the Government is of extracting the information for trial.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Data from unallocated space on hard drive

In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2009 WL 3706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)

Key Insight: Where government agency objected to defendants? subpoena for the production of documents previously produced in a separate litigation on grounds of undue burden and cost based on the assertion that it needed to re-review all documents prior to production because some documents were subject to the deliberative process privilege and others were highly confidential, court held that the privilege had been waived by the agency?s failure to object in its initial response and by the production in separate litigation, ordered the documents produced under the POD ?Confidential, For Outside Attorney Eyes Only? and ordered defendants to bear the costs ?of copying and producing the documents in electronic form?

Nature of Case: Allegations that defendants artificially increased the published price of prescription drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced in separate litigation and maintained in database by third party

Palisades Collection, LLC v. Kedik, 890 N.Y.S. 2d 230, 67 A.D. 3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s finding that plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a printed electronic spreadsheet where, although plaintiff?s agent averred the spreadsheet was kept in the usual course of business, the agent failed to establish his familiarity with plaintiff?s business practices and ?when, how, or by whom? the spreadsheet was made and where the agent failed to establish that the printed spreadsheet was a true and accurate representation of the electronic record

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Printed electronic spreadsheet

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Boland, 2009 WL 2424448 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff responded to discovery by producing large quantities of documents on CD (which had been indexed and arranged by topic and subtopic) and directing defendants that the documents sought were contained thereon, court found the response was ?sufficient? as to the ?general requests? but that ?where Defendant asked for more specific information, Plaintiff is required to identify which document on the CDs in which loan files are responsive in order to comply with Rule 33(d)(1)? and ordered plaintiff to provide ?more complete and specific responses? to certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged default on loan repayment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3443563 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, in response to request for documents indicating an effort to find work, defendant produced a list of emails and screen shots from his computer, but not the emails themselves, court found defendants response inadequate and ordered production of all relevant documents in his possession

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Sanders v. Kohler, 2009 WL 4067265 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of Am., 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Emails sent to co-workers to recruit them as co-plaintiffs not protected by the work product doctrine where plaintiff merely assumed co-workers would keep his communications secret but where court found that sending emails to employees of a corporation increased the likelihood that the material would reach others within the corporation and thus ruled that plaintiff forfeited the protection by using the work product ?in such a way that they may end up in the hands of [his]adversary;? where plaintiff sent emails to attorney family members and copied his non-lawyer sister or another relative, court ruled emails were protected by work product doctrine because material was prepared in anticipation of litigation and sharing with relatives ?did not significantly increase the likelihood that [defendant] would obtain private information?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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