Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)
2
Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)
3
Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2008 WL 4981400 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2008)
4
Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
5
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)
6
Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)
7
Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)
8
In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)
9
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)
10
Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

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

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

 

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant offered to produce a witness to authenticate a ?manageable number of documents? that plaintiffs would ?actually use at trial?, court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel production of a witness knowledgeable enough to authenticate thousands of documents and more than 580 CD-Rom discs of electronic files and source code and concluded that plaintiffs? motion was ?unreasonable and not supported by either the rules or the law?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

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