Case Summaries – Page 332 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause

Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems

Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 2007 WL 3333016 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Though plaintiff?s counsel?s conduct in failing to give notice to defendant prior to executing subpoena and inspecting and copying two laptop computers of non-party was ?a flagrant abuse of the subpoena power and bad faith,? sanction of dismissal was too harsh and court instead imposed “sizeable” monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of two laptops owned by non-party

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2007 WL 1791553 (D.N.J. June 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Further to its December 6, 2006 Opinion and Order (at 239 F.R.D. 81) sanctioning defendants and awarding plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with ?Rule 37/Integrity hearing? and related discovery motions, court approved $6,723,883 as amount of sanction

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Peak Interests, LLC v. Tara Hills Villas, Inc., 2007 WL 2993817 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff objected to producing laptop because it contained irrelevant confidential or proprietary information and promised to ?provide all requested data, in the electronic format in which it was created,? but production was not forthcoming, and, despite promise to do so plaintiff did not submit affidavit from computer consultant affirming that efforts to retrieve responsive information from laptop had been unsuccessful, court ordered plaintiff to deliver laptop to defense counsel for physical inspection and copying by a neutral third party; court restricted access to any non-responsive information retrieved to counsel of record, their experts, and necessary support staff

Nature of Case: Lease dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 214320 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Upon remand from district court judge, magistrate set out various reasons why he denied plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it sought to impose sanctions for defendant’s alleged failure to produce all spreadsheet materials in native format, its failure to timely produce spreadsheet materials, and its conduct in re-producing spreadsheet materials in non-native format that had already been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Adams, 2007 WL 789042 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiff?s objection to Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking testimony of person most knowledgeable about plaintiff?s computers/mainframe, which also requested that the deponent bring the mainframe or the ability to access the mainframe with him/her at the time of the deposition; court found that the information was relevant and discoverable, subject to the noticing party?s concession to take the deposition at the place of the mainframe

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Mainframe computer

Silipos, Inc. v. Bickel, 2007 WL 1180571 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed plaintiff to identify ?the lowest-paid employee of the data forensics company who is (a) knowledgeable about the process by which the data was extracted from defendant?s computer, and (b) able to give a deposition? by court?s deadline; court further ruled that defendant would be permitted to depose that employee for up to four hours, provided that defendant must pay for employee’s time at same hourly rate that had been billed to plaintiff; court encouraged counsel to take the deposition by telephone

Nature of Case: Misappropriation, breach of loyalty

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted documents recovered from defendant’s computer

Catagory:Case Summaries