Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)
2
Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)
3
Leader Tech., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2009 WL 3021168 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2009)
4
Fells v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2009)
5
Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)
6
Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)
7
Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)
8
Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)
9
Hape v. State, 903 N.E. 2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2009)
10
State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)

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

Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee admitted to using her personal computer to work from home and plaintiff thereafter sought to compel defendant?s production of that computer, court found that ?plaintiff?s informal request for a forensic copy of [employee?s] personal home computer does not impose upon the defendants the burden of producing property outside its possession and control? and therefore denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s personal computer

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

Fells v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Identifying a difference between costs expended for converting a paper document into an electronic one and creating electronically searchable documents, the court denied defendant?s request for recovery of costs related to ?electronic records initial processing, Metadata extraction, [and] file conversion?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

 

Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced one privileged email among thousands of pages and did not actually discover such production until months later, despite plaintiff?s reference to the email in a single spaced 5 page letter, and where upon discovery of the inadvertent production defendant immediately sought the email?s return, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant had waived privilege by failing to seek the email?s return within ten days, subject to the parties? clawback agreement, and ordered the email returned

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found no attorney-client privilege protection preventing production of employee’s email write up of an accident where Illinois law makes clear that ?employees who supply only the factual bases upon which the decisionmakers predicate their opinions? are not within the protected ?control group? pursuant to the relevant legal test and the communication was therefore not privileged; court also found no protection in the work product doctrine where the write up was generated in the usual course of business and was not of a ?legal nature? and ?primarily concerned with legal assistance?

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s email description of accident

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not consider contact information taken from defendants to be a ?record? and thus deleted the information from his computer and did not return it, court denied motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for violating preliminary injunction upon finding that plaintiff had substantially complied with the court?s order because deletion of the data satisfied the purpose of the injunction

Nature of Case: Fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff?s computer

Hape v. State, 903 N.E. 2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2009)

Key Insight: Where a jury discovered and considered text messages not authenticated separately from a properly admitted cell phone, court found that text messages must be separately authenticated before admission into evidence but declined to find grounds for reversal of defendant?s conviction where the error was harmless in the context of the other evidence against him

Nature of Case: Felony possession of methamphetamines

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court erred in admitting computer generated animation allegedly depicting the events that lead to trial where State failed to provide notice of its intent to use the animation, where the animation was created by a non-expert witness who lacked personal knowledge of the events, and where the State failed to lay a foundation for the evidence based on the incorrect assumption that the animation was merely demonstrative; appellate court determined animation was more prejudicial than probative where it did not merely illustrate a witness?s testimony but rather was ?a collage of information? from each of the State?s witnesses presented as fact

Nature of Case: Attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, attempted armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated animation

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.