Case Summaries – Page 284 – Electronic Discovery Law

David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where pro se defendant failed to assert the attorney client privilege when such information was sought and ?selectively disclosed? such information despite warnings from his former counsel, court found defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel; addressing defendant?s argument that his disclosures were ?mistakes? (and thus inadvertently produced) court noted defendant?s failure to seek the return of the confidential communications, his lack of effort to ?rectify or withdraw? any of his deposition disclosures, and that the disclosures occurred following warning from counsel and therefore found that ?any argument?that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications?lacks merit.?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

In re Kessler, 2009 WL 2603104 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In a case arising from the fire of a boat while in the marina the district court rejected the magistrate?s recommendation in favor of spoliation sanctions for the marina?s failure to preserve surveillance video because the court found that the owner of the boat did not meet the burden of establishing the marina?s culpable destruction of relevant tape in violation of a duty to preserve where the footage ?self destructed approximately twenty-seven hours after it was recorded? when it was automatically recorded over in the regular course of the system?s activities; marina was ordered to bear the cost of conducting forensic examination of its hard drive to determine if fire footage could be retrieved

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from a vessel destroyed by fire while in the marina

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered terminating sanctions against defendant and for defendant and its defense firm to pay plaintiff?s attorney?s fees where client made repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of certain chemicals at issue and failed to disclose relevant evidence about the same and where counsel failed to provide adequate guidance regarding the need to locate and produce responsive materials and allowed defendant to make repeated misrepresentations despite significant evidence that those representations were untrue

Nature of Case: Claims of property contamination

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant produced only portions of a requested manual in an alleged effort to save expenses despite its ability to reproduce the whole manual ?almost instantaneously? by computer to compact disc, and where defendant failed to produce other easily accessible and relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice but ordered monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Systs., 2009 WL 4042898 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

S.E.C. v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court approved stipulated protective order allowing defendant to waive privilege and work product protections as to certain categories of documents without also waving ?such privilege and protection regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Swendra v. Comm?r Pub. Safety, 2009 WL 660770 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion in denying defendant?s motion for discovery of Intoxilyzer 500 EN source code where defendant stipulated that test was administered properly and appeared to be in working order and where production would be unduly burdensome absent a showing of relevance beyond speculation

Nature of Case: Driver’s license revocation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Casual Living Worldwide v. Lane Furniture Idus. Inc., 2009 WL 37162 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce email sent to a foreign supplier despite objection that email was privileged where foreign supplier did not have the required commonality of interest to preserve the privilege i.e., ?a shared legal interest? but rather, only a possible ?common business interest?namely, that the Defendant be allowed to continue to produce the alleged infringing furniture??

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries