Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)
2
Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008)
3
Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 WL 2020362 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)
4
Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)
5
Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)
6
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)
7
Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)
8
U.S. v. Soliman, 2008 WL 4490623 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008)
9
Naik v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 2008 WL 4866015 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 19, 2008)
10
Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Stating that it was convinced that DuPont was proceeding as fast as it could, given privilege concerns and the sheer bulk of the documents at issue, court denied plaintiffs’ request that DuPont provide a more expedited production of electronic documents

Nature of Case: Tort claims for crop damage allegedly resulting from government’s spraying of herbicide

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff wrongly served Rule 45 subpoena on defendant in attempt to avoid discovery deadline, and subpoena was not limited in terms of time or subject matter but simply requested all emails contained in designated individuals’ in-boxes as of a particular date, and defendant set forth detailed account of burden and specific estimate of staff hours and cost that would be expended to comply with subpoena, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s compliance with subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Entire electronic mailboxes of key players

Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that case involved the operation of a government office, and images were contained within a government computer where there could be no expectation of privacy (particularly not when it is alleged that images were already seen by plaintiff and others), and pornographic images were clearly relevant if not ?res gestae,? court overruled County?s objections and ordered County to (1) provide plaintiff with copies of all of pornographic images from criminal investigation that were in its custody and control; and (2) allow plaintiff’s counsel and a computer forensics specialist access to the hard drive of supervisor?s work computer, so that all responsive images could be copied in electronic format for plaintiff’s counsel

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged she was required to work in a sexually hostile environment, and specifically that she was exposed to extreme, graphic and debasing computer/internet pornography contained in her supervisor’s office computer

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic images stored on supervisor’s office computer

Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking

Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish relevance of comment that was posted by individual defendant on Dattallegro?s web log (?blog?) but was later made unavailable for public access, and defendants had represented to court that they intended to meet their discovery obligations and would meet and confer with plaintiff to define scope of parties’ preservation obligations and protocols, court rejected plaintiff?s claim that defendants had destroyed relevant evidence and denied motion for preservation order

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Web log comment

U.S. v. Soliman, 2008 WL 4490623 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered government to re-produce CD-roms containing 60,000 documents ?in some accessible manner that is readily understood by the parties? where government?s previous production provided defendant with no index or way to locate a particular document or cross reference between disks and where despite no preference within the rules between inspection and copying, the government had undertaken to copy the materials for plaintiff

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for healthcare fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Over 60,000 documents produced on CD

Naik v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 2008 WL 4866015 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to find waiver of privilege where privileged portion of email was inadvertently produced amidst 2,300 pages and where defendant took immediate action to assert privilege, reasserted privilege at deposition, and produced a revised privilege log within five days; court also noted lack of prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

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