Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)
2
In re Krause, 367 B.R. 740 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007)
3
In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)
4
Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs. Inc., 2007 WL 5731934 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2007)
5
LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)
6
Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)
7
Imig, Inc. v. Electrolux Home Care Prods., Ltd., 2007 WL 900310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007)
8
Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)
9
Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)
10
Rafael Town Center Investors, LLC v. Weitz Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2261376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)

In re Krause, 367 B.R. 740 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007)

Key Insight: As sanction for debtor?s deliberate and intentional use of a wiping software program on computers after learning that court was ordering their production, and because of severe prejudice to trustee and government, court entered partial default judgment against debtor and ordered debtor to turn over all computers, portable storage devices and any backups within 10 days of order, and to execute any waivers or authorizations necessary for trustee and government to obtain assorted financial records; court further ordered that, if debtor did not comply within 10 days, bench warrant would issue for debtor?s apprehension and debtor would be incarcerated until he purged himself of contempt and complied with orders

Nature of Case: Government brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor to except his tax debt from discharge and declare various entities his alter ego

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs. Inc., 2007 WL 5731934 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce emails alleged to contain too little relevant information to justify production costs, court declined to compel production unless defendant indicated willingness to bear 100% of cost, including privilege review; court indicated that upon defendant?s discovery of ?highly relevant, non-cumulative information,? court may require plaintiff to pay fraction of cost

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)

Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment against defendants and dismissed their counterclaims with prejudice as sanction for repeated discovery violations and blatent disregard of court’s orders; among other things, defendants had failed to produce any emails and discarded individual defendant’s computer that was subject to inspection request

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Imig, Inc. v. Electrolux Home Care Prods., Ltd., 2007 WL 900310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement counterclaims, based in part on adverse inference stemming from plaintiff’s failure to preserve and produce relevant evidence; defendant showed that substantial portion of deleted files recovered by its forensic expert were favorable to its position on various claims

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged defendant improperly disparaged plaintiff’s product, and defendant asserted counterlaims for copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data on hard drives

Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant showed that there were more than 200 million sales transactions contained in database and that it would be necessary to create a special software program to capture the information requested by plaintiffs and translate the information into a meaningful and readable format, court sustained defendant?s objections of burdensomeness and overbreadth and denied motion to compel; court would allow plaintiff to serve new, more narrowly tailored requests for production but would first require parties to confer in good faith to discuss the form in which ESI should be produced and how to ameliorate the costs attendant to production of such information

Nature of Case: Third party breach of contract and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where court had invited motion to address e-discovery issues in order to assure that e-discovery issues were moving foward, court granted motion and directed parties to the Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI for the District of Kansas to serve as guidance pendng enactment by the court of its own local rules and/or guidelines; court further noted that, although no formal preservation order had been entered, the duty to preserve evidence including ESI arises as soon as a party is aware the documentation may be relevant; court further warned parties to be “very cautious” in relying upon the safe harbor provision of new FRCP 37(e)

Nature of Case: Nuisance and CERCLA claims against owners of poultry growing operations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rafael Town Center Investors, LLC v. Weitz Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2261376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ruled plaintiff was entitled to monetary sanctions arising from defendant’s document production, stating: “It is undisputed that the first two productions were essentially unusable, and that as a result, plaintiff’s law firm wasted a considerable amount of time attempting to organize the electronic documents. It was the responsibility of defense counsel to ensure that the document production complied with Rule 34(b)(i), and to oversee the work of defendant’s document management company.”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

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