Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Martone v. Burgess, 2008 WL 5120047 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2008)
2
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 111219 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2008)
3
Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2008 WL 341310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2008)
4
Tse v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 463719 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008)
5
Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2008)
6
Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)
7
Whitney v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2008 WL 2156324 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)
8
E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)
9
Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)
10
J.T. Shannon Lumber Co., Inc. v. Gilco Lumber, Inc., 2008 WL 3833216 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 14, 2008)

Martone v. Burgess, 2008 WL 5120047 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice if required to preserve information, failed to adequately establish the inaccessibility of the information sought, and failed to demonstrate the absence of ?questions serious enough to require litigation,? court granted plaintiffs? motion for preliminary injunction and preservation order requiring defendants to preserve information useful for identifying persons accessing plaintiffs? intellectual property through defendants? website

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding visitors to a particular website

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 111219 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff credibly argued that deposition testimony identified responsive but unproduced documents, court ordered defendant to certify that it had thoroughly searched for all responsive documents and to identify any documents or sets of documents that had been deleted, erased, or otherwise destroyed; although court would not require defendant to restore backup media at this juncture, it ordered defendant to identify what otherwise responsive but not readily accessible documents might be retained in archive form, on backup tapes/discs, or on any other backup media; court further ordered defendant to fully identify computers used by decision makers in plaintiff’s termination

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

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

Tse v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 463719 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s grossly negligent failure to produce laptop computer earlier in litigation reflected blatant disregard of her discovery obligations; court granted post-trial motion for sanctions and awarded defendant its fees and costs for: drafting pre-trial spoliation motion concerning plaintiff?s laptop; addressing plaintiff’s last-minute discovery of laptop; submissions to court regarding data retrieval issues and how defendant?s pretrial spoliation motion was affected; and drafting a new motion for sanctions based on plaintiff’s misconduct with respect to laptop and prejudice to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Resolving a number of discovery issues, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails and other stored electronic data concerning plaintiff, stating: ?Plaintiff’s bald assertion that there must be more e-mails than the 100 already produced is not persuasive to the court.?

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Whitney v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2008 WL 2156324 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Where handwritten IIR was included with numerous other similar documents and destroyed en masse by airline under document retention policy, court found that, although there was a ?disturbing amount of carelessness on defendant’s part? in its retention and production of the IIRs, plaintiff had not demonstrated that handwritten IIR would have been favorable to her case or that she was prejudiced by its absence; accordingly, court declined to impose any spoliation sanctions but awarded plaintiff her fees and costs in connection with motion

Nature of Case: Airline passenger allegedly injured by another passenger sued airline claiming negligent failure to protect and gross negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Original handwritten ?Inflight Irregularity Report? and conflicting electronic versions of same

E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where information requested was relevant to EEOC?s claim, and defendants failed to provide concrete substantiation of the alleged burden, either in terms of manpower, hours, or financial resources that would be required to compile it, court ruled that, even though EEOC requested information in electronic database form, defendants’ answers were not restricted by their electronic record-keeping system; court ordered defendants to make a good faith effort to compile supplemental information from all available sources

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records and information

J.T. Shannon Lumber Co., Inc. v. Gilco Lumber, Inc., 2008 WL 3833216 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 14, 2008)

Key Insight: Granting motion to quash, court found that subpoenas duces tecum served by plaintiff on Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! requesting entire contents of individual defendants’ mailboxes and other information were facially invalid under Stored Communications Act of 1986 and were overly burdensome and oppressive; court found that breadth was so expansive that it resembled a ?fishing expedition,? and that plaintiff had not shown that all information requested was relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Intentional interference with business relationships, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Entire contents of individual defendants’ mailboxes stored on third-party ISPs, details of individuals’ accounts and user connection logs

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