Case Summaries – Page 326 – Electronic Discovery Law

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where discovery missteps which resulted in delayed production of notebooks were merely negligent and not reckless or intentional, court imposed penalty of cost-shifting and reimbursement in the amount of $50,000 and declined to impose any of the ?inquisitorial sanctions? demanded by plaintiff; court further ruled that ?no [defense] attorneys will be dragged behind a chariot outside the city’s walls.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Scientists’ notebooks that were converted into electronic format

Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had destroyed her computer and modem equipment with knowledge of her duty to preserve relevant evidence and in an attempt to protect herself from plaintiffs’ claims, court declined to enter default judgment and would instead: (1) preclude her from offering certain evidence and arguments at trial, and (2) give an adverse inference instruction to the jury

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Individual defendant’s computer and cable modem

Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In this seminal case, District Court Judge Paul Grimm held that the failure of both parties to adhere to the rules of evidence precluded entry of summary judgment and discussed at length and in great detail the admissibility of electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Action to enforce a private arbitrator?s award

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted

Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports

Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1076702 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive

Pace v. Int’l Mill Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 1385385 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced requested work orders in .pdf format and then in other electronic formats in attempts to resolve plaintiff’s complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions since plaintiff could not show that production request called for any specific format and court could not conclude that defendant had failed to meet such request

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work orders

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 2007 WL 3377215 (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose spoliation sanctions against defendant university for deletion of former teaching assistant’s email account, where university backed-up the contents of the account onto two CDs before deleting it, and the deletion occurred before the lawsuit was filed

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that all emails on DVD appeared to constitute “crucial evidence” in the case, court ordered their production notwithstanding plaintiff’s claimed burden and expense to review them and even though some of them may prove to be irrelevant to the dispute; court rejected plaintiff’s counsel’s claim of technical incompetence, finding that once he was on notice of potential problems he was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the contents of DVD

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged bad faith breach of insurance agreement

Electronic Data Involved: DVD containing email sent or received by plaintiff through University of Denver email account

Catagory:Case Summaries