Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)
2
Imig, Inc. v. Electrolux Home Care Prods., Ltd., 2007 WL 900310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007)
3
Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)
4
Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)
5
Rafael Town Center Investors, LLC v. Weitz Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2261376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)
6
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)
7
Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)
8
Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)
9
In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)
10
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

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

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where goal of prior discovery orders authorizing immediate forensic copying of computers of defendants’ 50 key custodians by plaintiff?s expert, escorted by United States Marshall, was to protect against defendants? destruction of responsive information in light of defendants? persistent and contumacious refusals to produce ESI, court denied motion for stay of orders pending appeal, finding that the class?s interests far outweighed any potential harm to defendants in the execution of the orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where nonparty merely asserted, without adequate factual support, that compliance with the subpoena would cause it to incur ?significant expenses,? court denied nonparty?s request for costs for time spent by its employees configuring and executing electronic search and by attorneys reviewing results of search

Nature of Case: Breach of limited partnership agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

Key Insight: Kmart’s failure to implement litigation hold and “woefully insufficient” efforts to retrieve responsive information did not warrant spoliation sanctions on present record and would be denied without prejudice to creditor’s renewing it in the future should evidence support it; court awarded creditor portion of attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered Kmart, to the extent it had not already done so, to perform a systematic search of all files on certain drives and produce responsive material to counsel within 14 days of order

Nature of Case: Creditor asserted breach of contract and other claims against Chapter 11 debtor in possession

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

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