Catagory:Case Summaries

1
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Olson Staffing Servs., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009)
2
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2009 WL 5159761 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2009)
3
Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2008 WL 4613046 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2009)
4
Lewis v. Ryan, 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009)
5
Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)
6
Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)
7
Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)
8
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)
9
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1025166 (Ky. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2009)
10
Dirickson v. State, 2009 WL 195744 (Ark. App. Jan. 28, 2009)

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Olson Staffing Servs., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where authentication ?is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims?, court rejected argument that only the author could authenticate and found email was properly authenticated by the testimony of the person who ?personally retrieved the email from [the relevant] computer?

Nature of Case: Violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2009 WL 5159761 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Recognizing a ?division of opinion? as to whether e-discovery vendor costs are recoverable, court called the ?highly technical? services provided by the e-discovery vendor the ?21st century equivalent of making copies,? noted that ?taxation of these costs will encourage litigants to exercise restraint in burdening the opposing party with the huge cost of unlimited demand for electronic discovery? and overruled and denied plaintiff?s objection to taxation as costs of the e-discovery consultant?s fees; Summary judgment reversed and costs vacated in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., Nos. 1010-1201, 2010-1203, 2011 WL 3487023 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2011)

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2008 WL 4613046 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for preliminary injunction, including injunction against destruction of evidence related to plaintiff’s claims, including computers

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lewis v. Ryan, 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court adopted recommendation of the magistrate judge to impose an adverse inference and exclude certain evidence as sanction for spoliation where defendants indicated they could not locate information, including ESI, which, according to records retention requirements, should have been in their possession at the time plaintiff propounded his request and thus should have been preserved and produced; court found ?clear and convincing evidence that defendants were ?at fault? for recklessly and negligently allowing the documents to be destroyed

Nature of Case: Civil rights complaint arising from service of pork to Muslim inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, ESI

Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding emails or portions of emails withheld were subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel their production; court?s reasoning included discussion of the propriety of withholding email headers and held that redaction of email headers was proper where such headers provided information including: ?the topic of discussion between certain people, the identities of those people, and the time at which the discussion took place.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1834998 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of transaction data and rejected plaintiffs? arguments that defendants should be required to make a reciprocal production and that absent such reciprocity plaintiffs? production would be unduly burdensome; court found defendant?s request for use of additional search terms to identify responsive emails was not unduly burdensome where defendant was added to litigation late and where plaintiffs therefore assumed the risk of increased costs in light of expanded claims

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data, emails

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gustafson, 2009 WL 641297 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered specific protocol for search of mirror images of defendant?s hard drive allowing defendant to first remove privileged and irrelevant material and create a detailed privilege log and then to produce the redacted drive to plaintiff; upon receipt of redacted drive, plaintiff was ordered to confer with defendant to establish search terms and to use those terms to identify potentially relevant information on the drive; where plaintiffs accessed information later claimed to be privileged, court would resolve dispute and privilege would not be waived

Nature of Case: Violation of Computer Fraud Abuse Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, interference with contractual obligations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Thompson v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1025166 (Ky. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld trial court?s admission of digital recordings into evidence where tapes were authenticated by officer?s testimony that that the device used for recording had been used more than 100 times and that that the recording was downloaded directly to a computer and then transferred to CDs specifically identified at trial, and where informant testified that the recordings ?fairly and accurately depicted the events of the [recorded transaction]?

Nature of Case: Criminal drug trafficking

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recordings of alleged drug sale to informant

Dirickson v. State, 2009 WL 195744 (Ark. App. Jan. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court?s ruling allowing admission of transcripts of online chats into evidence was affirmed where such evidence was considered ??original? in the context of computers? under the rules of evidence and thus satisfied the Best Evidence Rule; court reasoned that even if the transcripts had not satisfied Best Evidence Rule, transcripts were admissible as copies because the originals had been destroyed, but not in bad faith, and the transcripts (?duplicates?) were authenticated by the officer?s testimony regarding how the transcripts were created and the reliability of their content

Nature of Case: Internet stalking

Electronic Data Involved: Transcripts of online chat

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