Case Summaries – Page 296 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider dismissal of plaintiffs? case as sanction for ?campaign of fraud? that included intentionally wiping data, ?losing? original CDs and tape recordings, and misrepresentations to the court where the court found plaintiff?s behavior willful and prejudicial and where lesser sanctions would not have sufficed and where plaintiffs? alleged ?new evidence? was also ?suspect?; dismissal affirmed on appeal (2010 WL 2294538)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications

RGIS, LLC v. A.S.T., Inc., 2008 WL 186349 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? request for appointment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 special master to analyze and compare source codes of subject software prior to any discovery of proprietary source codes

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code for software in hand-held computers used for inventory control

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2008 WL 548765 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s December 21, 2008 order imposing sanctions of $99,462, upheld the December 21, 2008 order in its entirety, and ordered defendants to comply with the order by March 3, 2008

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Peterson v. Tri-Country Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 2008 WL 723521 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence

Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes

Global Technical Search, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 2008 WL 789929 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant certified that he had deleted any and all of plaintiff’s proprietary information from his computer and stipulated to plaintiff’s requested relief, court ordered that a mutually acceptable representative of plaintiff be allowed to examine defendant’s computer to confirm permanent deletion of proprietary information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Recruiting firm’s database; computer hard drive

Robinson v. Motivation Excellence, Inc., 2008 WL 2096957 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Because court ruled that plaintiff?s claims were without merit and granted defendant?s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, court concluded there was no need for expert to access laptop?s hard drive and that defendant was entitled to return of its property; court ordered plaintiff to return laptop and other property to defendant former employer, and directed defendant to ?preserve, maintain, and protect all such property and things in their present state from destruction, modification and/or alteration? until the action was finalized

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptop

Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

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

Dec 01 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

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Catagory:Case Summaries