Catagory:Case Summaries

1
AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)
2
Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)
3
Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)
4
Sharp v. City of Palatka, 2008 WL 89762 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2008)
5
Karim v. Natural Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 429627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2008)
6
Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 2008 WL 2224288 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008)
7
WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 751 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 2008)
8
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)
9
Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008)
10
Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)

AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel additional electronic searching as to certain custodians where defendant established their potential relevance and where plaintiff failed to establish additional search would be unduly burdensome or that custodians had no relevance to litigation; court noted that plaintiff?s assertions that documents referencing custodians at issue were drafted before the popularization of email does not excuse obligation to search for potentially relevant materials even where the search may be ?fruitless?

Nature of Case: Breach of reinsurance contracts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email of particular custodians

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to for leave to take expedited discovery from defendants? internet service providers (two universities) for purpose of identifying Doe defendants where information sought was necessary for continued prosecution of the litigation and where narrowly tailored requests would reduce if not eliminate any prejudice to defendants; court limited discovery to defendants? directory information and MAC (media access control) addresses and provided defendants opportunity to object

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ISP directory information, MAC addresses

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

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

Karim v. Natural Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 429627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: Where computer hard drive was not relevant and material to plaintiff’s ability to return to employment, evidence regarding plaintiff?s employability was ascertainable by other means, and it would be impossible to discern plaintiff?s computer usage beyond the use testified to at deposition given that several members of plaintiff’s household also used the computer, court denied as improperly invasive third-party defendant?s request for a ?clone? of plaintiff’s home computer hard drive

Nature of Case: Injured construction worker sued for violations of New York Labor Law and for common law negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s home computer

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

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish relevance of comment that was posted by individual defendant on Dattallegro?s web log (?blog?) but was later made unavailable for public access, and defendants had represented to court that they intended to meet their discovery obligations and would meet and confer with plaintiff to define scope of parties’ preservation obligations and protocols, court rejected plaintiff?s claim that defendants had destroyed relevant evidence and denied motion for preservation order

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Web log comment

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