Case Summaries – Page 305 – Electronic Discovery Law

Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on parties? cross-motions regarding production of various types of ESI sought by plaintiffs, court denied motion to compel source code given its value and secrecy and plaintiff?s failure to make proper preliminary showing justifying production; court further denied motion to compel production of schema for Google?s advertising database, but granted motion to compel as to data from YouTube logging database and schema for Google Video Content database

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases, computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google’s internet search tool ?Google.com? and source code for YouTube’s ?Video ID? program

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking

Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses

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

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email

Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 WL 4852915 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant (in part) plaintiffs? motion for expedited discovery upon third party internet service providers prior to Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff established direct connection between a particular email address and defendant, where email address was connected to the sale of allegedly infringing goods, and where ?very real danger? existed that ISPs would not preserve the information; court denied motion as to two email addresses where no showing of a connection to defendant or alleged infringement was made

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where trial court granted plaintiff access to all defendant?s databases, including an exclusively privileged database, based upon an unproven assumption regarding ease of production and upon defendant?s violation of a prior court order by failing to provide sufficient information regarding its search efforts, appellate court quashed order noting that defendant?s violations were correctable and non-prejudicial and thus could not justify invasion of the attorney-client privilege or work product

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court clarified prior sanctions order and held that where top email in string was not properly and timely logged, it must be produced, however, properly and timely logged underlying messages in string were protected but only to extent that they were ?identical replicas of the version of the message that was logged?; where top message was properly logged, privilege extended to properly logged underlying messages in string but any messages not properly logged were ordered produced

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendants had ?intentionally destroyed or withheld? ESI, including by deleting relevant evidence or attempting to discard a relevant hard drive (which was instead saved by the technician defendant told to discard it), and where the destruction resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered default judgment against defendant and other evidentiary sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sharp v. City of Palatka, 2008 WL 89762 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: No adverse inference warranted for alleged spoliation of audio recordings, since plaintiff failed to establish first element that recordings ever existed; however, plaintiff would be free to elicit testimony concerning the alleged recordings at trial

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of two conversations

Catagory:Case Summaries