Case Summaries – Page 285 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Golden v. State, 2009 WL 3153262 (Ark. App. Ct. Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite testimony that the methods utilized to copy surveillance tape could reduce the image?s fine detail and the State?s failure to comply with a court order to produce the original of the surveillance tape because it had been lost, the trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant a new trial where a duplicate tape is admissible to the same extent as the original and where there was no evidence of bad faith in the loss of the tape; in so deciding, court also cited testimony that defendant did not objet

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of original surveillance tape

East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of ?pack data? (related to the number of tomatoes picked and packaged) where the alleged spoliation consisted of plaintiff?s entry of additional information to the ?pack data? following commencement of litigation but where the court found that no spoliation had occurred because the source of the newly added information was preserved, because the data was ?added as opposed to changed,? and because defendant had the right of cross examination at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)

Ayers Oil Co. v. Am. Bus. Brokers, Inc., 2009 WL 4725297 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where a party to the litigation forwarded an email from his attorney to a third party, the court ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because there was no shared legal interest between the litigant and the third party and thus the common interest doctrine did not apply but held that the protection provided by the work product doctrine had not been waived where the email was forwarded to ?a nonadversary third party? and where there was no basis for finding it likely that the third party would not keep the email confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 331608 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that defendant?s delay in producing a privilege log and the insufficiency of the entries therein supported a finding of waiver, court nonetheless declined to impose the ?extreme sanction? of waiver as to the actual privileged communications but held that defendants had failed to establish that the attached ?preexisting business records? were privileged or protected and ordered the them produced

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

Hearst v. State, 2009 WL 1037730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where government entities were not required to prepare any record not already possessed or maintained by such an entity in response to a FOIL request and where state agency argued a response to petitioner?s request would require such preparation to protect government employee?s social security numbers, court agreed with agency and denied petitioners? requests as stated but ordered production of data extracted using petitioners? suggested method, despite acknowledgement of inferiority of resulting information, where such extraction would substantially accomplish petitioners? objectives but maintain state employees? privacy protection

Nature of Case: FOIL request

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata, databases

Catagory:Case Summaries