Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090 (Ala. 2007)
2
Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)
3
In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)
4
Omax Corp. v. Flow Int’l Corp., 2007 WL 1830631 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2007)
5
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 1686327 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007)
6
Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 2007 WL 177691 (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2007) (Not yet released for publication)
7
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)
8
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 991747 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2007)
9
Hill v. Eddie Bauer, 2007 WL 1309536 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2007)
10
3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090 (Ala. 2007)

Key Insight: In light of evidence presented by Cooper that burden of producing responsive emails would entail thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, Alabama Supreme Court granted in part petition for writ of mandamus and instructed trial court to ?specifically address Cooper’s arguments that compliance with the plaintiffs’ request for the discovery of e-mails is unduly burdensome in light of the recent federal guidelines on that subject,? and to enter an appropriate protective order to the extent it found that the production of certain ESI was unduly burdensome; court further opined that trial court should consider the 2006 FRCP amendments and the factors applied in Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Nature of Case: Defendant tire manufacturer in product liability case petitioned Alabama Supreme Court for writ of mandamus ordering trial court to grant its motion for a protective order limiting discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other ESI

Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s counsel became aware of mistaken production of privileged email during June deposition but waited until September to contact defense counsel to explain the inadvertent disclosure and request that defendant destroy and agree not to use the email, court applied five-part test and found ?no overriding interest of justice that requires the Court to relieve plaintiff’s counsel of its production errors?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved Trustee?s request for permission to pay computer forensics expert $70,000 as a necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate, where recovery of deleted electronic information was necessary to enable Trustee to locate and administer valuable assets of estate and to understand debtor’s prepetition transactions, and where expert?s services provided a concrete benefit for the estate since approximately $400,000 in assets was recovered by Trustee as a result

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: 14 hard drives; deleted data

Omax Corp. v. Flow Int’l Corp., 2007 WL 1830631 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Even if database was incomplete and potentially unhelpful, court found that plaintiff was nonetheless entitled to information contained in the database since it did have some value and was relevant to plaintiff?s damages case, and its production did not appear to involved undue cost or complexity

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 1686327 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to grant sanction of dismissal since there was insufficient evidence of intentional or bad faith conduct, or adverse inference instruction since it was unclear how relevant the missing email was, court awarded monetary sanctions since Spain?s failure to timely implement adequate litigation hold and failure to conduct timely and diligent search for electronic discovery was negligent and resulted in loss of email; court further directed Spain to complete its forensic search for email records and produce such records on rolling basis

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 2007 WL 177691 (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2007) (Not yet released for publication)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court’s order granting temporary injunction protecting Vinmar’s trade secrets; evidence at hearing included testimony of neutral forensic computer analyst jointly hired by the parties pursuant to court order, who examined former employees? computers and located some 321,000 “hits” using keyword search “Vinmar,” which expert said translated into thousands of Vinmar documents on those computers, and found indications of possible spoliation

Nature of Case: Chemical trading company sued former employees to enforce confidentiality and non-compete agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information, spreadsheets

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Court awarded $22,371 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with earlier motion to compel that court granted on November 14, 2006; court further ordered that plaintiff’s second motion to compel relating to the same issues would be set for hearing

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 991747 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ FRCP 60(b) motion for relief from discovery orders, and ordered defendants to comply with prior orders and, among other things, produce certain database in native format, and produce requested email and Excel spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Class action brought by farm workers

Electronic Data Involved: Database, email and spreadsheet

Hill v. Eddie Bauer, 2007 WL 1309536 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel, court expressed dismay that parties had not addressed discovery of ESI given FRCP e-discovery amendments and fact that much of the evidence was in electronic format; court ordered parties to personally meet and confer to discuss a discovery plan addressing, among other things, electronic discovery, modifications to the Federal Rules, depositions, and the like, and lodge the proposed discovery plan by certain date

Nature of Case: Individual and class action alleging labor abuses

Electronic Data Involved: Sales information, employee information

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

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