Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)
2
Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 2008 WL 623027 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2008)
3
Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)
4
Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)
5
Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)
6
St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)
7
Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)
8
Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)
9
Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 4830752 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2008)
10
In Re U-Haul Class Action Tammy Koceinda, 2008 WL 5071996 (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2008)

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 2008 WL 623027 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Because outright dismissal was too severe a sanction for spoliation in view of minimal culpability of Sun Trust and slight potential for abuse, court would give jury adverse inference instruction instead

Nature of Case: FMLA claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Court applied balancing test and found that plaintiff?s inadvertent production of single privileged email on CD among 22,000 pages of documents did not effect waiver given expedited nature of discovery, scope of documents produced, limited extent of disclosure and lack of any demonstrable prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Email message drafted by a Wachovia corporate litigation attorney summarizing conference call and formulating legal advice concerning bank-wide policy on Wachovia’s relationships with certain customers was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, notwithstanding inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that Wachovia conspired with telemarketing companies and payment processor to violate United States law

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff explained that earlier drafts of expert?s report were not ?destroyed,? but that expert merely saved different ?iterations? of report within same file on his computer until report was complete, and where there was no indication that drafts of report were edited or ?ghost-written? to support a predetermined outcome, court denied defense motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Prior drafts of expert’s report

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 4830752 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where late production of documents resulted in some prejudice to defendants but where prejudice was minor in light of limited relevance of the documents produced and their limited value to defendants? case and where defendants failed to show that documents missing from production were destroyed rather than ?simply lost? or a significant degree of resulting prejudice, court declined to impose dismissal or adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37; monetary sanctions in the amount of $205,507.53 were subsequently ordered (Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2009 WL 55953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009))

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

In Re U-Haul Class Action Tammy Koceinda, 2008 WL 5071996 (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of emails sent between plaintiff, her attorney, and her husband, where husband was an attorney, although not the attorney of record, and where he acted as plaintiff?s ?personal attorney? and provided legal advice regarding ongoing litigation

Nature of Case: Class action breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.