Case Summaries – Page 298 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

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

In re Carco Elecs., 536 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where party was dissatisfied with scope and degree of protection afforded by trial court?s protective order relating to production of source code, and appealed, Third Circuit found that the discovery order was neither final nor appealable and dismissed appeal

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2008 WL 4850116 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered only an inference that evidence was destroyed based on ?the mere lack of evidence? produced by defendant and where plaintiffs failed to take timely action to address discovery disputes, court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation; addressing plaintiffs? argument that defendant?s failure to issue a timely litigation hold notice resulted in destruction of evidence, court noted, ?[w]hile a party must ?put in place a ?litigation hold? to ensure the preservation of relevant documents, there is no requirement that it must be written.? [citation omitted]

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. and Operations, Inc., 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce requested expert information in searchable format, pursuant to court order, until after defendants filed a motion for sanctions, but where plaintiffs failures were not willful and where prejudice to defendants was minimal, court ordered plaintiff to bear costs of defendants? motion to compel but declined to strike plaintiffs? expert or impose other severe sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Expert’s report in searchable format

Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve evidence by taking ?no steps whatsoever to preserve emails or documents? following receipt of a cease and desist letter, court ordered adverse inference instruction that missing documents were unfavorable to defendants but declined to impose requested sanction of default judgment absent a showing of bad faith

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Printouts from government websites were self-authenticating pursuant to ER 902(5) where the printouts were published online by a public authority and where the printouts contained identifying information, including the URL and the name of the public entity; acquisition of website printout through FOIA request where website was not available to the public did not prevent self-authentication of the printout; printouts were exceptions to the rule of hearsay pursuant to ER 803(8)

Nature of Case: Violations of FLSA and Wage and Hour Law

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy print outs of government websites

Relion v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2008 WL 5122828 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff ?did not pursue all reasonable means of preserving privilege? court found that attorney client privilege was waived when plaintiff unintentionally produced two privileged emails in hard copy despite conducting a privilege review and because plaintiffs failed to discover the production until revealed by defendants despite having both paper and electronic, text-searchable copies of the documents produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2008 WL 341310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Concluding that ESI sought from plaintiff’s computers directly related to issues in dispute and that the computers likely contained certain relevant evidence that was not contained on CD-ROMs or email attachments previously produced by plaintiff, court granted defendants? motion for an extension of the date by which to designate experts to a date after their inspection of plaintiff’s computers; court extended various discovery deadlines and ordered parties to confer to formulate a procedure reasonably calculated to afford the moving defendants the discovery to which they were entitled, while at the same time protecting plaintiff?s privileged information

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims under Ohio consumer protection laws based upon emails received from defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Catagory:Case Summaries