Case Summaries – Page 302 – Electronic Discovery Law

Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve limited, immediate discovery on third party internet service provider seeking identities and contact information of defendants where court acknowledged ?good cause exists for Plaintiffs? discovery because Defendants must be identified before this suit can progress?; court ordered third party provider to give five days notice to defendants and set deadline for potential motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

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

In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 20008 WL 5104173 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court compelled production of deponent to answer specifically tailored questions regarding retention of electronically stored documents where plaintiff suspected spoliation due to defendant?s failure to timely issue preservation notices and where inquiry into retention policies would assist in narrowing scope of discoverable electronic materials; court also compelled production of identity of author of relevant email

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies, email

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Seventh Circuit upheld trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as sanction for flagrant discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Dealerships sued for breach of contract and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data

Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 2008 WL 2224288 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where information maintained in electronic database was necessarily in a form that was not identical to report prepared on basis of that data and produced in discovery, and defendant did not claim that database was “not reasonably accessible,” court ordered defendant to produce or make otherwise available that part of electronic database that evidenced the issuance of certificates during relevant time frame

Nature of Case: Action among gem grading laboratories concerning the right to use certain trademarks in the U.S. and the right to issue grading certificates bearing those marks

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing information used to prepare report produced by defendant in discovery

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 751 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with certain of the court of appeals’ specific holdings, including: that municipalities denied open records requests of WIREdata and, thus, violated open records law; that PDFs were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; and that open records law required access to computerized database; decision of court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cases remanded to trial courts

Nature of Case: Company sued municipalities under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing property assessment records

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 WL 4442571 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where parties submitted competing expert testimony in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court also considered and ruled upon parties’ cross-motions to exclude their opponent’s computer forensics expert under FRE 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and USB flash-drive device

Catagory:Case Summaries