Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)
2
Plew v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 2009WL 1119414 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009)
3
Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2009)
4
S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)
5
Commonwealth v. Lanana, 7 Pa. D. & C. 5th 225 (2009)
6
Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)
7
Freeman v. Comm?r of Public Safety, 2009 WL 1919931 (Min.. Ct. App. July 7, 2009) (unpublished)
8
Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)
9
Espy v. Info. Tech., 2009 WL 2912506 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2009)
10
Transcap Assoc., Inc. v. Euler Hermes Am. Credit Indemnity Co., 2009 WL 3260014 (N.D. Ill Oct. 9, 2009)

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes

Plew v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 2009WL 1119414 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion to compel, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that emails sent to and from a non-party could not be protected as work product where email exchanges occurred at the behest of counsel, because of the relevant litigation, and where there was no indication that the communications were likely to be revealed to plaintiff or any other adversary of the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to timely place a litigation hold and where electronic evidence was subsequently destroyed by an automatic deletion system, court declined to impose sanctions upon plaintiff?s failure to show that the evidence destroyed was relevant to her claims

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code

Freeman v. Comm?r of Public Safety, 2009 WL 1919931 (Min.. Ct. App. July 7, 2009) (unpublished)

Key Insight: Where defendant ?made a minimally sufficient showing of relevancy? by arguing that the requested source code could reveal deficiencies in the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, court found trial court?s denial of defendant?s discovery motion an abuse of discretion and reversed in part and remanded

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

Espy v. Info. Tech., 2009 WL 2912506 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing several discovery disputes, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce a CD containing the contents of a secure website related to defendant?s attempt to sell the company following an in camera review of the same; rejecting defendant?s arguments that 28,000 pages of uncategorized electronic documents without bates stamps were produced as kept in the usual course of business, court ordered defendant?s to identify ?by index or otherwise? specific documents responsive to plaintiff?s request

Nature of Case: Suit seeking commission for sales made as employee of defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Transcap Assoc., Inc. v. Euler Hermes Am. Credit Indemnity Co., 2009 WL 3260014 (N.D. Ill Oct. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant ?produced? archived marketing materials by directing plaintiff to website commonly known as the Way Back Machine (which itself warned of missing links and image in webpages) and did not establish or allege that it maintained material on the Way Back Machine in the ordinary course of business, and where the court determined defendant had not adequately investigated the existence of responsive documents in paper form, court granted motion to compel and ordered defendant to conduct ?a thorough search? for responsive documents and to produce them in paper or electronic format within 14 days; court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys fees and costs and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff for the numerous discovery violations addressed in the opinion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage action

Electronic Data Involved: Way Back Machine

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