Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)
2
Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)
3
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)
4
Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)
5
Bitler Inv. Venture II, LLC v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, 2007 WL 465444 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2007)
6
White v. Potter, 2007 WL 1207205 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2007)
7
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1875928 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2007)
8
Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2106098 (S.D.N.Y. July 21. 2007)
9
Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)
10
Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery

Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: District judge modified magistrate’s December 4, 2006 sanctions order, allowing Dell to use the 57 disputed documents at trial since it concluded that Dell had provided the documents in a way that fulfilled all of its discovery obligations and DE had not moved to compel production of the documents in a different format

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that defendants had taken steps to prevent spoliation of evidence and the only support for preservation order was that defense counsel had been accused of destroying evidence in a separate case, court found that plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of past evidence destruction by the parties to this case and concluded that preservation order was not necessary

Nature of Case: RICO civil action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Bitler Inv. Venture II, LLC v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, 2007 WL 465444 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2007)

Key Insight: Where principal of co-plaintiff forwarded 15 email exchanges with counsel to plaintiffs’ testifying expert witness, and expert witness produced them as part of his file even though he stated he did not consider them when forming his opinion, court ordered production of such emails under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and waste

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

White v. Potter, 2007 WL 1207205 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered that certain representations of the Postal Service regarding the ineffectiveness or impossibility of additional searching for responsive documents and ESI be documented and attested to by sworn testimony, in order to lay a solid foundation upon which court could decide motion to compel and/or any future motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1875928 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of magistrate judge’s March 12, 2007 order awarding plaintiff $22,371 in expenses and attorney’s fees as sanction for defendant’s discovery violations

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

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2106098 (S.D.N.Y. July 21. 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of email from 113 backup tapes, estimated to cost between $45,200 and $79,100, plus attorney’s time in reviewing documents, since defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that responsive emails relating to settlement negotiations existed on the backup tapes, which covered time periods that were months after the settlement was reached; court noted that if moving party wished to pay to restore the backup tapes, it may do so

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.