Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 WL 2900581 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007)
2
Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
3
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)
4
Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)
5
Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)
6
E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)
7
Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)
8
Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)
9
Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)
10
Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 WL 2900581 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007)

Key Insight: Adverse-inference instruction not warranted where there was no showing that relevant electronic communications were destroyed or that destruction occurred in bad faith; officers involved in the shooting were not likely to have used email to communicate about the event in the day after it occurred, and, under HPD’s document retention and destruction policy, electronic communications records were routinely destroyed within ninety days

Nature of Case: Wrongful death action based on shooting death of 14-year-old boy by police officer

Electronic Data Involved: Records of Houston Police Department electronic communications in the 24 hours after victim’s death

Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying without prejudice plaintiff?s motion, based on spoliation of evidence, to strike defendants? answers or preclude defendants? use of office records to support their defenses; however, court did err in not granting alternative relief requested, i.e., compelling additional discovery, including depositions of certain witnesses, production of records, and inspection of computers, since such additional discovery was reasonably calculated to produce relevant and material evidence and defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Office computer hard drive and information regarding its destruction

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff withheld and destroyed relevant documents and committed other egregious discovery abuse, but other factors weighed against dismissal, court concluded that less extreme sanctions were appropriate and precluded plaintiff from presenting certain arguments at trial and from seeking damages related to the termination of his employment

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sued publisher alleging breach of a promise to keep his name and employer confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Email

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Where court had previously denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that defendant had made the showing, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), that email sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or costs,” and because plaintiff had not shown good cause to justify the expense of the proposed discovery, court denied subsequent motion to compel defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee to provide testimony on how email production cost estimate was determined

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court found it ?difficult to imagine? that defendant did not possess any responsive electronic or paper documents, plaintiff submitted no information upon which to question defendant?s representation and court had no basis to compel production; court instead required defendant to supplement discovery responses unconditionally representing that no responsive documents were in its possession, custody or control

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records identifying vacant positions at GM plant

Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced no evidence or description of its attempt to engage in a “reasonable inquiry” under FRCP 26 to discover and produce the requested information, other than the general observation that finding the information would be difficult, and where issue of numerosity was important issue for class certification, court ordered defendant to produce information and if it failed to immediately undertake good faith effort to do so, court would allow plaintiff and his counsel ?to inspect in a reasonable manner the Defendant’s files and records, including electronically stored information, on these issues?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding number of individuals who received particular letter from defendant collection agency

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