Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)
2
Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)
3
Ashman v. Solectron Corp., 2008 WL 5071101 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2008)
4
Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)
5
U.S. v. Simels, 2008 WL 5383138 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008)
6
Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)
7
Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 5262707 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)
8
Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)
9
Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)
10
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced electronic files in ?MAX format? with free ?Paperport? software to assist in its review but where plaintiff then expressed preference for hard copy documents and belief that electronic documents would cost triple the amount to review, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel holding that defendants? production of files as kept in the usual course of business was sufficient; court also ruled that where plaintiff?s first request for documents did not specify production in electronic form, defendants need not reproduce hard copy documents electronically

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish custodians? possession of relevant emails beyond speculation or vague assertions, and where responding party already produced ?voluminous amounts of email,? court declined to compel production of emails from either custodian

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Ashman v. Solectron Corp., 2008 WL 5071101 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to return documents gained through illegal access to defendants’ computer system and ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ expenses related to its motion but declined to dismiss the case or preclude use of documents received in ?normal course? of discovery where policy favors resolution on the merits, where most documents would have been produced in discovery, where improper conduct was not ongoing, and where preclusion of evidence would have provided windfall advantage to defendants

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Despite court?s acknowledgment of the requested data?s relevance, plaintiff?s offer to provide a technical expert to perform the search, and plaintiff?s proffer of at least three alternative search protocols, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel a school district to search for specified terms in the databases of all its schools where court found that the proposed discovery imposed an excessive burden due to the district?s lack of technical resources and where plaintiff?s proposals failed to sufficiently lessen that burden

Nature of Case: Complaint alleges unreasonable seizure of high school student and use of excessive force resulting in permanent injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases at all school’s in district

U.S. v. Simels, 2008 WL 5383138 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: Where attorneys for lay criminal defendant were indicted for conspiracy and privileged materials were seized, parties established procedure for identification of privilege by allowing ?privilege team? of government lawyers segregated from prosecution team to review seized materials, concurrent with defense teams, and for the teams to reach agreement regarding each documents privilege status; where lay criminal defendant refused to waive attorney client privilege such that attorney defendants could use privileged materials at trial, court ruled disclosure to attorney defendants? counsel would not waive lay defendant?s privilege but declined to rule on the use of those materials at trial where such consideration was ?premature?

Nature of Case: Narcotic trafficking, conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

 

Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to request seeking “[a]ny and all electronically stored information, documents, reports, logs and/or memorandums contained in any and all of the electronic databases and/or computer systems of Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Bruce Dixon, and Dana Phillips” as overbroad, unreasonably cumulative, and unduly burdensome, since the request imposed no limits (time or otherwise) on ESI requested; court allowed plaintiffs to revise request to include reasonable limitations and serve it by certain date

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that case involved the operation of a government office, and images were contained within a government computer where there could be no expectation of privacy (particularly not when it is alleged that images were already seen by plaintiff and others), and pornographic images were clearly relevant if not ?res gestae,? court overruled County?s objections and ordered County to (1) provide plaintiff with copies of all of pornographic images from criminal investigation that were in its custody and control; and (2) allow plaintiff’s counsel and a computer forensics specialist access to the hard drive of supervisor?s work computer, so that all responsive images could be copied in electronic format for plaintiff’s counsel

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged she was required to work in a sexually hostile environment, and specifically that she was exposed to extreme, graphic and debasing computer/internet pornography contained in her supervisor’s office computer

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic images stored on supervisor’s office computer

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

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

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

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