Case Summaries – Page 333 – Electronic Discovery Law

J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Adams, 2007 WL 2080391 (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court found that no adverse inference was warranted where plaintiff preserved driver logs and repair documents for the requisite amount of time provided in applicable federal regulations, then discarded them in accordance with its standard business practices, since other uncontroverted evidence existed which rebutted the requested adverse inference

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Driver logs and repair records for tractor and trailer involved in accident

Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4111410 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel inspection of plaintiff’s personal computer by defendants’ expert for purpose of retrieving relevant documents and investigating cause of computer crash; court instead ordered plaintiff to produce all relevant documents from the computer, and if documents were unrecoverable, plaintiff must produce an affidavit from a qualified technology expert explaining the reasons for lack of recovery

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

CSI Inv. Partners, II v. Cendant Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant lost highly relevant financial and marketing data during data conversion but did not reveal the fact of the lost evidence until 3-1/2 years after plaintiffs originally requested it, and defendant raised frivolous and vexatious objections to plaintiffs’ requests for production, court found bad faith and ordered defendant to pay $720,000 to plaintiffs, representing 15 percent of plaintiffs? attorneys fees, as sanction for discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and marketing data

Franks v. Creighton Univ., 2007 WL 4553938 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court sustained defendant’s objection to interrogatories seeking ?voluminous information? regarding University’s computer systems, email systems, software configurations, system maintenance, and the like as being “beyond overbroad,” finding that cost of auditing Creighton University’s entire computer system was not justified by the possibility that “plaintiff might discover tidbits of information possibly related to this lawsuit”

Nature of Case: Claim arising under Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information about university’s computer systems and email systems

Muro v. Target Corp., 243 F.R.D. 301 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of documents listed on defendants? privilege log, faulting among other things Target?s failure to identify and describe separately on its privilege log each allegedly privileged message within a string of email communications

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

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

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

Albertson v. Albertson, 73 Va. Cir. 94, 2007 WL 6013036 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where issuance of a court order granting defendant the authority to access plaintiff?s password protected files already in defendant?s possession did not require plaintiff to perform a testimonial act, court held plaintiff?s assertion of Fifth amendment right did not bar court from granting defendant?s motion

Nature of Case: Divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Password protected computer files

ISO Claims Servs., Inc., ACI Div. v. Appraisal.com, Inc., 2007 WL 809684 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that it was willing to produce documents that were the subject of defendant’s motion to compel, but had been waiting for a response from defense counsel as to how to best produce electronic documents (which formed the bulk of the production), court set date for production and expressed hope that “the parties will be able to work out how best to produce documents contained in electronic format on their own”

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Catagory:Case Summaries