Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)
2
Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)
3
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)
4
Hightower v. Heritage Acad. of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008)
5
Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)
6
Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)
7
MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 4940361 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008)
8
SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
9
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)
10
Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2008)

Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Deciding various motions in limine, court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence relating to destruction of surveillance videotape to demonstrate that adverse inference instruction was not barred as a matter of law; court further granted plaintiff?s motion to re-open discovery for limited purpose of conducting focused three-hour deposition of particular individual who was most knowledgeable about defendant?s video surveillance system

Nature of Case: Lebanese nightclub patron brought civil rights action against municipality, police department, and certain employees and owners of nightclub

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motions for preliminary injunction and for sanctions, where evidence that defendants had improperly accessed plaintiffs? computers was weak, evidence from forensic inspection of defendants? laptops was ambiguous, and ?most damning? piece of evidence was one defendant?s use of a drive cleaner on laptop after being served with summons and before laptop could be examined; court found that defendant’s proffered explanation for using the drive cleaner was not ?particularly implausible? and observed that plaintiffs could renew sanctions request if evidence later supported it

Nature of Case: Company asserted various claims against former employees, including misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective business opportunity, breach of loyalty and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptops; other ESI

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI

Hightower v. Heritage Acad. of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Observing that defendant had not argued that requested emails were not reasonably accessible and had not otherwise demonstrated that production of emails by four identified individuals on single topic over four-year period was unduly burdensome, court rejected defendant?s overbreadth and burdensome objections and ordered defendant to produce responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails sent or received by four members of defendant’s Board of Trustees pertaining to plaintiff and/or her employment

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 4940361 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008)

Key Insight: Special Master recommended production of un-redacted source code repository, development ?twiki? and operational versions of programs at issue to experts and plaintiff?s counsel where access to current versions was ?reasonable? before experts drafted reports and where prior orders did not prohibit it; Special Master also recommended in-person confirmation that production included all required information as kept in usual course of business

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: source code repository, development “twiki”

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated court orders directing production, plaintiff failed to produce an un-redacted email upon which the case turned and claimed the email inaccessible because the computer on which it was stored had been destroyed and where plaintiff failed to pay court ordered sanctions for its failure to produce, court lifted earlier stay of dismissal and ordered plaintiff to pay additional $5000 sanction plus defendant?s attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

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

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