Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 2008 WL 877962 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008)
2
In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)
3
Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)
4
Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)
5
Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)
6
Flying J, Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2008 WL 5449714 (D. Utah Dec. 31, 2008)
7
U.S. v. Simels, 2008 WL 5383138 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008)
8
Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)
9
Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 5262707 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)
10
Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)

Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 2008 WL 877962 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008)

Key Insight: Court issued order relieving law firm of its duties as Co-Interim Class Counsel for plaintiffs, set scheduling conference and ordered parties’ attorneys to meet to discuss various issues in advance of conference, including joint proposed scheduling plan, preservation of evidence and any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Court found that defendant waived attorney-client privilege as to specific emails where defendant failed to establish privileged nature of the communications and where defendant failed to properly identify the emails on a privilege log prior to their inadvertent production; court ordered adverse instruction in favor of plaintiffs as spoliation sanction where defendant failed to produce highly relevant hard drives for inspection and where defendants? proffered explanations for the destruction of those hard drives was contradicted and ?lame? in light of defendants? knowledge of their relevance and its duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, hard drives

Flying J, Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2008 WL 5449714 (D. Utah Dec. 31, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to enforce prior Order compelling discovery where defendants produced documents from limited time frame but could produce no more because the information was recycled pursuant to its previously disclosed retention policy, prior to defendant?s notice of the lawsuit; court declined to compel production of alternative information because it was not what plaintiffs originally sought or what was required by the Order

Nature of Case: Unlawful conspiracy to prevent and suppress competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on back up tapes

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

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.