Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)
2
Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)
3
Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)
4
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2008 WL 3851957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)
5
Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)
6
Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)
7
Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2008 WL 4981400 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2008)
8
Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
9
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)
10
Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)

Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Court applied balancing test and found that plaintiff?s inadvertent production of single privileged email on CD among 22,000 pages of documents did not effect waiver given expedited nature of discovery, scope of documents produced, limited extent of disclosure and lack of any demonstrable prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Email message drafted by a Wachovia corporate litigation attorney summarizing conference call and formulating legal advice concerning bank-wide policy on Wachovia’s relationships with certain customers was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, notwithstanding inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that Wachovia conspired with telemarketing companies and payment processor to violate United States law

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) was disjunctive and allowed a party to provide either a copy or description of documents, court found that plaintiff had complied with rule by providing CD containing documents to defendants (regardless of whether document descriptions contained in disclosure statement were insufficient or whether CD was ?searchable?), but directed plaintiff to file supplemental disclosure statement in which he affirmatively states that documents contained on CD were documents he may use to support his claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing documents listed in plaintiff?s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure statement (consisting of more than 11,000 pages)

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2008 WL 3851957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: District court overruled Spain’s objections to Magistrate Judge?s various orders of November 3, 2006, January 25, 2007 and June 6, 2007

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? request to delay production of recorded telephone conversations until after depositions of defendant debt collector’s employees had occurred, court rejected plaintiffs’ unsupported and conclusory argument that witnesses would tailor their testimony to match recordings (thus negating impeachment value); court noted that equity and fairness weighed in favor of production to allow defendant an equal opportunity to prepare

Nature of Case: Consumers alleged violations of federal and state debt collection laws

Electronic Data Involved: Recorded telephone conversations between plaintiffs and debt collectors employed by defendant

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where non-party indicated inability to perform electronic search of subpoenaed communication logs and estimated more than 100 hours of manual searching to respond and where subpoenaed information exceeded relevant scope of claims, court declined to impose ?unreasonable burden? on non-party and denied motion to compel; where identification and production of subpoenaed email would result in ?massive expense? but where plaintiffs offered to limit their request to a sampling, court decline to rule pending non-party?s response

Nature of Case: Wage and hour employment case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2008 WL 4981400 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced relevant emails from targeted custodians but where plaintiff sought all emails mentioning his name and where additional searching would cost $300,000, court declined to compel production of additional emails; where emails were produced in hard copy and relevant metadata could not be seen, court ordered defendants to ?determine feasibility? of electronic production and to produce in electronic form ?absent unusual circumstances?; court denied motion to compel generally where plaintiff?s requests were overbroad and unreasonable in their scope

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Key Insight: Pursuant to its inherent equitable authority, where plaintiff accessed one defendant?s personal email accounts without authorization and attempted to use emails therein during litigation and where such activity would be a violation of The Stored Communications Act, court precluded plaintiffs? use of those emails for all but impeachment purposes; where plaintiffs initially produced wrongfully obtained emails with their print dates obscured but defendants later gained access to original form, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant offered plaintiff access to the relevant computer for analysis but where defendant had not yet provided access and had failed to confirm production of all responsive documents from all relevant computers pursuant to court order, court ordered defendant to make computer available within 15 days so that plaintiff?s expert might ?ascertain for itself whether all responsive documents have been produced or?whether any relevant information on the hard drive or drives have been destroyed, erased, or wiped? and to serve verified supplemental responses to discovery indicating ?a diligent search of every computer [at issue]?

Nature of Case: Complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)

Key Insight: Where party admitted to deliberate destruction of personal computer and was thus unable to produce it in response to discovery requests and where party also admitted to perjury, Supreme Court held chancellor abused his discretion in failing to impose sanctions pursuant to his obligation to ?consider sanctions that are severe enough to deter other from pursuing similar action? and remanded for reconsideration accordingly

Nature of Case: Divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

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