Case Summaries – Page 330 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents

In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Debtor’s liability to his former employer for willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and for award of sanctions based on his spoliation of evidence were exempted from discharge in bankruptcy; court granted former employer’s motion to lift automatic stay so that trial court could determine the amounts for which debtor was liable and enter final judgment

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and confidential business data

Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce mirror image copies of hard drives at location of defendants’ computer forensics expert, since court saw no reason to treat such discovery differently than traditional (paper) discovery, any privacy concerns were addressed in the protocol proposed by defendants, and it was less burdensome than forcing defendants’ experts to conduct their testing at the site of plaintiff’s experts

Nature of Case: Patent litigation involving claims of forgery and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to develop joint precertification discovery plan and articulated detailed guidelines for discovery of ESI adapted from the ?Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information? set forth by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying Ford’s request for clarification of January 4, 2007 Order, court nonetheless confirmed that plaintiffs may ask deponent about what materials are available for production, and if materials are not available, why they are not available; “Plaintiffs are not, however, permitted to use the deposition as a surrogate for production of the suspension document, and may not ask questions pertaining to the specific contents or rationale behind the suspension order.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notice

KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 2326892 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant stated it did not maintain physical copies of statements and that compliance with production request would impermissibly require it to create documents, court found that defendant had not shown requested information was “not reasonably accessible” and ordered production to the extent defendant maintained any of the requested information electronically

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Customer account statements

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

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

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where witness testified at his deposition that he did not recall receiving plaintiff?s litigation hold memorandum and had deleted unspecified email to ?clean up,? and plaintiff subsequently conducted forensic search of deponent?s computer hard drive, recovered available deleted emails and stated it would produce responsive email not previously produced, court found that defendant failed to establish two necessary elements of spoliation, since evidence was insufficient to show there were any ?missing? emails that would constitute “evidence,” or that any of the “missing evidence” was crucial to defendant’s claims or defenses

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries