Case Summaries – Page 285 – Electronic Discovery Law

N.A. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Bound Tree Medical, LLC, 2009 WL 4110889 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where third party sought sanctions/costs and attorney?s fees for plaintiff?s alleged violation of its obligation to avoid the imposition of undue burden or expense on a non-party following the third party?s expenditure of more than $50,000 in responding to plaintiff?s subopoena (including the cost of converting electronically stored information for review), court denied third party?s motion where plaintiff?s subpoena sought relevant documents within a reasonable time frame and where third party voluntarily complied with the subpoena without conditioning its compliance on reimbursement

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jneid v. Tripole Corp., 2009 WL 4882654 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial upon finding that defendant ?did not act intentionally? when if failed to produce certain documents before trial and that the evidentiary and issue sanctions imposed, including preclusion of use of certain documents, preclusion from introducing certain evidence, preclusion of certain arguments, and an adverse jury instruction, were ?more severe than necessary? where an order for defendant to pay all costs incurred by the completed trial (as suggested by defendant) was sufficient to rectify the prejudice to the plaintiff; on remand, court ordered trial court to determine the cost incurred by plaintiffs and cross-complainant in connection with trial and the costs incurred because of the late production of documents and for defendant to pay such costs

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contracts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer embedded information

Kandel v. Brother Int?l Corp., 2009 WL 5454888 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants presented evidence that 110 privileged documents were produced despite extensive preventative measures, including key word searching and manual review, and where defense counsel took immediate action to identify all privileged materials that had been produced and to request plaintiff return, sequester, or destroy the documents pursuant to the parties? clawback agreement, court found that ?defendants ha[d] shown their production?was inadvertent within the meaning of?the protective order? and denied plaintiff?s motion for an order declaring 28 documents produced by defendants to be not privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

United States v. Haymond, 2009 WL 2835398 (D. Okla. Aug. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where law requires denial of a request to copy or reproduce child pornography as long as the material is made ?reasonably available? to defendant and where defendant?s expert claimed an inability to locate the alleged illegal images on the forensic copy of the hard drive to which he was provided access, court indicated reticence to order the production of ?file data? to assist in the location of relevant images on the drive, but ordered defendant?s expert to instead coordinate access to the previously provided copy and for the government to assist his efforts by providing ?software keys? in there possession ? if effort failed, court indicated willingness to consider ordering production of the requested ?sector and file? information to assist defendant?s expert?s examination

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Images on hard drive

United States v. Hatfield, 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Addressing a number of attorney-client privilege and work product issues, the court considered whether documents stored on defendant?s company?s computer remained privileged and, noting the case-by-case nature of the assessment, considered five factors, including whether the company maintained a policy banning personal use, whether the company monitored employees? computer use or email, and how the company interpreted its own policy, and determined that defendant had not waived privilege as to documents stored on his own hard drive or that of a person with whom he maintained a joint defense agreement

Nature of Case: Criminal charges arising from alleged fraudulent schemes by CEO to defraud shareholders

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails stored on company computer

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting that a party seeking discovery from a non-party ?must satisfy a burden of proof heavier than the ordinary burden imposed by Rule 26 relating to discovery on any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,? the special master quashed certain of plaintiff?s requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome including a request for forensic copies of a non-party?s employee work stations and server computers and a request for detailed information related to a the non-party?s technical environment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic copies

Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found that defendant violated temporary restraining order by failing to disclose certain relevant emails and other ESI discovered following forensic examination of defendant?s computer and rejected defendant?s assertions that the failure resulted from his lack of understanding of his discovery obligations, mistake of his counsel, and his own lack of computer savvy; Court ordered defendant to pay attorneys? fees and costs attributable to the additional discovery and motions practice undertaken as a result of non-disclosure

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 1292977 (D. Mass. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted use of a particular computer to share copy written files but was unable to remember relevant details of the file sharing and put the question of the significance and scope of his infringement at issue, court granted plaintiffs? motion to copy and inspect defendant?s computer but ordered very strict protective order in light of defendant?s significant privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records related to file-sharing software and metadata associated with music files, including deleted files

Catagory:Case Summaries