Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)
2
AHF Cmty. Dev., LLC v. City of Dallas, 2009 WL 348190 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2009)
3
McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)
4
In re Tamer, 877 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Surr. Ct. N.Y. 2009)
5
Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)
6
Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)
7
Bolger v. D.C., 608 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009)
8
Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)
9
In Re Nat?l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 2169174 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2009)
10
Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

AHF Cmty. Dev., LLC v. City of Dallas, 2009 WL 348190 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Where city inadvertently produced privileged documents due to its conversion to new software but then allowed its witness to testify regarding those documents at deposition without objection, court held privilege had been waived and declined to compel the documents? return

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

McClendon v. Challenge Fin. Investors Corp., 2009 WL 589245 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Revenue report from database properly considered as business record under ER 803(6) where report was based on data entered and preserved in database in the regular course of business, where the database was regularly maintained and updated by the company?s accountants, where the accountants had personal knowledge of the information entered into the database, and where the foundation for its admission was provided by a ?qualified witness? familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the database

Nature of Case: Class action arising from alleged violations of Ohio Mortgage Act and common law violations of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Database report

In re Tamer, 877 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Surr. Ct. N.Y. 2009)

Key Insight: Finding electronic production sufficient to satisfy the relevant statute requiring production of documents as kept in the regular course of business or organized to correspond to the category of the request, court granted objectants motion to compel trustees to accept production in electronic form and not hard copy and ordered such production to be accompanied by an index identifying the document produced in response to each demand and the electronic file where the document was stored

Nature of Case: Contested accounting proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Production of documents in electronic form

Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting plaintiff?s motion to strike defendants? affidavit and attached emails where emails were not properly authenticated; appellate court found defendants? reliance on Willis v. Hill, 116 Ga. App. 848 (1967) to appeal the trial court?s ruling was misplaced where Willis held that ?”[u]pon production of copies pursuant to a notice to produce, the producing party admits the correctness of the copies and further proof is unnecessary in order for the moving party[, i.e., the requesting party,] to introduce them into evidence? but where in the present case the emails sought to be admitted were produced by defendants, i.e. the party seeking their admission, and thus Willis was inapplicable

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, collect on open account

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI

Bolger v. D.C., 608 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants admitted destroying relevant radio communications but argued that such destruction was not sanctionable because it unintentionally occurred as the result of a routine operation of the police communication systems and because the information destroyed was of minimal relevance, court found that defendants were under an obligation to preserve and had (at least) negligently destroyed the radio communications, but declined to order an adverse inference because plaintiff?s proffer of evidence regarding the communications? relevance and the proper inference from their destruction was ?too speculative?

Nature of Case: ? 1983 Action against D.C. police for constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: Radio communications (“radio runs”)

Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Where forensic examination of defendant?s hard drive revealed the deletion of electronic evidence using wiping software and where at the time of the deletion defendant was subject to a duty to preserve, court declined to impose default judgment but ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Nature of Case: Claims of fraud, misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drive

In Re Nat?l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 2169174 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part a motion for sanctions based on multiple plaintiffs? alleged delay and spoliation, including a failure to preserve relevant evidence, and ordered sanctions including excluding certain plaintiffs from affirmatively using late produced documents and allowing the moving party to proffer evidence at trial that it believed would give rise to an adverse inference and entitle it to an adverse jury instruction

Nature of Case: Consolidated actions arising from the collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to magistrate judge?s order ?to do what the [Rules] already require in no uncertain terms, and that is to search for the responsive documents and produce them? (where defendant had unilaterally decided not to look for ESI), court rejected defendant?s objections, including her argument of undue burden, where plaintiffs? use of broad language did not automatically render them overbroad and where declarations in support of the alleged burden were ?largely conclusory?, where magistrate?s order (and Federal Rules) did not require futile searching where it was clear no documents would be found (after good faith inquiry), and where defendant offered only speculation that her search would result in ?needless duplication?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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