Case Summaries – Page 312 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant argued it produce in hard copy format (Excel spreadsheets) all the information that defense expert relied on in creating his regression models, court ordered defendant to produce raw data in electronic format but denied plaintiff?s request to depose defense expert or persons responsible for compiling the information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of raw, unfiltered data from defendant’s human resource database which defense expert used to conduct regression analysis

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

Gen. Elec. Co. v. SonoSite, Inc., 2008 WL 4062098 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where both sides argued that the other side had not produced all responsive information and it appeared to court that there were a few places in which parties may not have yet looked, court gave parties one last chance to look for responsive material before it would hold them to their ?the documents don’t exist? positions and warned that lack of diligence or forthrightness would result in sanctions; court further denied plaintiff?s request to modify protective order that required source code be made available on a computer at producing party?s office for viewing by opposing party

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

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

Dec 01 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 Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 20008 WL 5104173 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court compelled production of deponent to answer specifically tailored questions regarding retention of electronically stored documents where plaintiff suspected spoliation due to defendant?s failure to timely issue preservation notices and where inquiry into retention policies would assist in narrowing scope of discoverable electronic materials; court also compelled production of identity of author of relevant email

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies, email

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Seventh Circuit upheld trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as sanction for flagrant discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Dealerships sued for breach of contract and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data

Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 2008 WL 2224288 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where information maintained in electronic database was necessarily in a form that was not identical to report prepared on basis of that data and produced in discovery, and defendant did not claim that database was “not reasonably accessible,” court ordered defendant to produce or make otherwise available that part of electronic database that evidenced the issuance of certificates during relevant time frame

Nature of Case: Action among gem grading laboratories concerning the right to use certain trademarks in the U.S. and the right to issue grading certificates bearing those marks

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing information used to prepare report produced by defendant in discovery

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 751 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with certain of the court of appeals’ specific holdings, including: that municipalities denied open records requests of WIREdata and, thus, violated open records law; that PDFs were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; and that open records law required access to computerized database; decision of court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cases remanded to trial courts

Nature of Case: Company sued municipalities under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing property assessment records

Catagory:Case Summaries