Case Summaries – Page 280 – Electronic Discovery Law

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Freestar Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 3756898 (D.N.H. Nov. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that emails transmitted for purpose of responding to discovery were not privileged, court affirmed magistrate?s order denying motion to quash subpoena seeking production of such emails; addressing defendant?s argument that separate email entries on privilege log should have been considered as a string, court relied on Muro v. Target Corp. noting that while ?Muro says that a court cannot force a party to individually list emails that appear in a privilege log as a string; it does not say that a court must string together emails that are listed separately.?

Nature of Case: trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

U.S. v. Cameron, 2009 WL 4544928 (D. Me. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where following an order to produce relevant laptops for defendant?s expert to examine the government represented its lack of custody of such laptops, save one, and that the laptop in its possession did not contain relevant evidence but did contain materials statutorily prohibited from dissemination, court amended order to explicitly relieve the Government of the obligation to produce materials not in its possession or to produce the laptop containing materials restricted from dissemination by statute; court?s opinion explicitly affirmed defendant?s right to question the Government regarding its failure to preserve and to bring any newly discovered evidence to the court?s attention

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

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

Dec 01 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

Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 2009 WL 64358 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to quash plaintiff?s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice seeking a representative to answer questions regarding defendant?s document retention policies where the deposition was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information and where plaintiff indicated various reasons why he required the information sought, including defendant?s failure to produce any information regarding a relevant database and defendant?s claims that certain information was no longer accessible, among other things

Nature of Case: Product liability

Andrew Corp. v. Cassinelli, 2009 WL 736669 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered discovery into extent of defendant?s compliance with Settlement Agreement upon plaintiff?s showing that confidential information remained on defendant?s computer system and where defendant?s court ordered search for additional information included retention of discovery firm to search seven computers, an email server, and a scratch drive using 26 terms based on the content of the previously discovered confidential information, court found the search ?deficient? and that defendant had failed to confirm that all information subject to the Settlement Agreement was deleted and appointed a Special Master, at defendant?s expense, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s attorneys fees for its Motion to Enforce and Supplement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Mktg. Mgmt., Inc., 2009 WL 3200540 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where request for production was unduly burdensome in light of the cost of production and necessary labor to comply, despite the requesting party?s attempt to narrow the scope, and where the court found the request overly broad and that it sought information irrelevant to the litigation, court declined to compel production in response to the particular request, but granted in part other portions of the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D.G ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, 2009 WL 455266 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion seeking production of emails from particular custodians and rejected defendant?s argument that cost of production should be shifted where defendants did not challenge the relevance of the emails at issue, where plaintiff?s ?reasonably limited their request to avoid undue burden? to defendants, and where the court?s consideration of the Zubulake factors resulted in a determination that cost shifting was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Class action against DSHS

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 886848 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants recreated documents sought by plaintiff using raw data after destroying copies of the original document pursuant to its document retention policy and where plaintiff offered no evidence to ?reasonably question? such a practice or that any data was destroyed in anticipation of litigation, court found insufficient evidence to support an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Breach of contract claims arising from denial of insurance claim

Electronic Data Involved: Original declaration sheet

Surplus Source Group, LLC v. Mid-Am. Engine, 2009 WL 961207 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the need for a third search of defendants? electronically stored information resulted from plaintiffs? delay in providing search terms, court ordered defendants to undertake third search, using terms provided by plaintiffs, but ordered plaintiffs to bear the cost of the third search, up to the amount equal to the second search, reasoning that such an order would essentially result in plaintiffs bearing the cost of the second search which was insufficient because of their delay

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants? alleged failure to split profits from sales of industrial equipment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries