Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Richmond v. Coastal Bend Coll. Dist., 2009 WL 1940034 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2009)
2
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)
3
El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)
4
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)
5
People v. Roberts, 2009 WL 3380019 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 22, 2009)
6
Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo, S.P.A., 2009 WL 3757054 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)
7
Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)
8
Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)
9
In re Krause, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009)
10
Leader Tech., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2009 WL 3021168 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2009)

Richmond v. Coastal Bend Coll. Dist., 2009 WL 1940034 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for protective order preventing the production of emails in sealed court file where plaintiffs failed to establish an exception to the Public Information Act requiring their disclosure, where plaintiffs failed to establish defendants? waiver of privilege, and where plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of the crime fraud exception; court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel certain information, including personal emails, and ordered defendants to submit affidavits indicating their lack of personal accounts, if appropriate, and for defendants to produce emails ?of a personal nature to the court under seal? for a determination of relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holder LLC, 2009 WL 1683628 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2009)

Key Insight: Special master recommended granting in part plaintiff?s motion to compel documents withheld as subject to attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine for several reasons, including that the privilege log was incomplete based on plaintiff?s failure to log each message in an email string as a separate and unique document pursuant to Rhoads Industries, Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96404 (E.D.PA.2008); special master noted, ?it would be impossible for the party seeking discovery to challenge a communication or document that he does not know exists?; recommendation includes discussions of attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the common interest privilege

Nature of Case: Violations of Lanham Act, Violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and commercial disparagement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part defendant?s motion to compel production of printouts and electronic information pertaining to defendant from government?s National Crime Information Center Database, court ordered portions of the information likely to lead to weakening of government programs (and other alleged harms) and subject to the law enforcement privilege redacted but for the remaining information to be produced; redactions were dictated by the court upon en camera review

Nature of Case: Abuse of process claim arising from alleged improper detention

Electronic Data Involved: All documents related to plaintiff from the National Crime Information Center Database

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

People v. Roberts, 2009 WL 3380019 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 22, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, based on chain of custody testimony, the trial court admitted a videotape discovered by defendant?s roommate and given to the police, but where there was no testimony concerning the making of the videotape or where it was kept or who had access to it during the nearly three year period from the time of its making to its discovery, and where the appellate court acknowledged that ?because films are so easily altered, there is a very real danger that deceptive tapes, inadequately authenticated, could contaminate the trial process,? appellate court found admission of the tape was in error and that the error was not harmless and ordered a new trial

Nature of Case: Sex abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo, S.P.A., 2009 WL 3757054 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Noting a lack of any indication that plaintiff objected to production in electronic format and highlighting the fact that electronic discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules, court ordered production of discovery in electronic format and directed the parties to confer to determine the best method of production; upon defendant’s assertion that plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant communications as evidenced by the production of previously unseen communications by a third party, court declined to impose sanctions absent evidence of bad faith but indicated a willingness to re-open depositions upon defendant?s submission of subjects to be pursued therein

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Emails between employee and counsel using work computer were protected as privileged where employer did not ban personal use of the company email and where employee was unaware of employer?s regular access to his emails and thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy; privilege was not waived, despite employer?s access to the emails, where employee had ?no intention of allowing?his employer, to read the emails? and disclosure was thus inadvertent and where he took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure by deleting the emails as they came into his account and by filing a motion to intervene to assert the privilege upon learning of his employer?s possession of the emails and their possible disclosure in litigation

Nature of Case: Violations of Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

In re Krause, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: On appeal, court upheld sanctions for intentional spoliation and other misconduct, including seizure of debtor?s passport and partial summary judgment, where such sanctions were within the discretion of the court and warranted by debtor?s behavior

Nature of Case: Government brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor to except his tax debt from discharge and declare various entities his alter ego

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

Leader Tech., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2009 WL 3021168 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for a stay of the Magistrate Judge?s order to produce source code pending review of that order by the District Court where the Magistrate Judge was satisfied as to the relevance of the source code and the ?stringent protection? ordered surrounding defendant?s production; court subjected review of the source code to strict circumstances, including that plaintiff only be permitted to view the code at a location of defendant?s choosing on a non-networked, stand alone, password-protected computer with limited assistance from experts and counsel, among other conditions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

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