Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)
2
Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Pitkin, 2008 WL 4150225 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2008) (Unpublished)
3
digEcor, Inc. v. e.Digital Corp., 2008 WL 4335539 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2008)
4
Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)
5
Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2008 WL 5063291 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2008)
6
U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)
7
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5479701 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2008)
8
Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)
9
Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2008)
10
Leist v. GHG Corp., 2008 WL 183330 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2008)

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

Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Pitkin, 2008 WL 4150225 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2008) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where Commissioner was legally authorized to conduct an investigation, subpoena sought documents and ESI that were reasonably relevant to investigation, and Commissioner had valid concerns regarding completeness of plaintiff?s prior productions, court found that investigative subpoena was issued for a proper purpose and denied plaintiff?s motion to quash; court further rejected plaintiff?s claim that subpoena was unduly burdensome, noting that plaintiff had failed to present any documentary evidence of its cost estimates and that plaintiff must bear production costs like any other cost of doing business

Nature of Case: Securities investigation conducted by Connecticut Commissioner of Banking

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

digEcor, Inc. v. e.Digital Corp., 2008 WL 4335539 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s subpoenas to plaintiff?s suppliers and customers were overly broad and requested information from too broad a time period, court noted that ?[d]iscovery requests directed to an opponent’s customers are to be approached with caution, even more than is advised in most discovery directed to third-parties,? and ordered that numerous requests be modified or narrowed in scope; court further noted that protective order could sufficiently protect confidential information sought from suppliers

Nature of Case: Breach of contract litigation concerning digital video player intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Email, source code, object code, executable code and other ESI

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Website

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2008 WL 5063291 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish existence or relevance of emails allegedly spoliated or that defendants alleged abuses resulted from willful misconduct or gross negligence, trial court declined to impose sanctions; court of appeals affirmed

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel, interference with a contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to preserve exculpatory evidence where defendant alleged government spoliation of potentially exculpatory hard drives but failed to show that the unavailable evidence possessed exculpatory value that was apparent prior to destruction and that he could not obtain comparable evidence by other means and where defendant failed to adequately support an inference that evidence was destroyed in bad faith

Nature of Case: Recieving and transporting child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5479701 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Where documents produced by plaintiffs had been printed into hard copy and then scanned into electronic format and produced on CD, Special Master found that documents had not been produced as they were kept in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Rule 34 and recommended plaintiffs be ordered to produce an index identifying documents responsive specifically to moving party?s requests; court adopted Special Master?s recommendation in subsequent opinion, 2008 WL 5120696 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2008)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, unspecified ESI

Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court found that pornographic video attached to an email from defendant was properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) where, considering the ?appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances,? the video was found to be what it was purported to be and where, applying the ?reply letter doctrine? the video was considered to be genuine and admissible in light of the fact that it was sent in response to a message sent by the government inquiring about the video, among other things

Nature of Case: Promotion of or possession with intent to promote obscene material

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic video attachment to email

Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? request for additional round of pre-certification discovery on defendant?s process of preserving, locating and producing responsive documents, since some electronic documents had been produced and only basis for motion was general ?paucity? of defendant’s document production and ?theoretical possibility? that other electronic documents might exist

Nature of Case: Putative class action against Postmaster General by deaf postal employees

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

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