Case Summaries – Page 333 – Electronic Discovery Law

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs. Inc., 2007 WL 5731934 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce emails alleged to contain too little relevant information to justify production costs, court declined to compel production unless defendant indicated willingness to bear 100% of cost, including privilege review; court indicated that upon defendant?s discovery of ?highly relevant, non-cumulative information,? court may require plaintiff to pay fraction of cost

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 7122747 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions but, despite prior production of the information in hard copy, ordered defendant to restore and re-produce information from backup tapes where the information was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and where defendant asserted that it?s ?documentation? was maintained in electronic form in the usual course of business, and ordered the parties to split the costs; court declined to compel defendant?s search of computers which ?may or may not have been utilized by plaintiff and his comparators? where requiring a search of an unknown number of computers in various offices with the possibility that no relevant individuals utilized them was unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, computers

LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm’t, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment against defendants and dismissed their counterclaims with prejudice as sanction for repeated discovery violations and blatent disregard of court’s orders; among other things, defendants had failed to produce any emails and discarded individual defendant’s computer that was subject to inspection request

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Imig, Inc. v. Electrolux Home Care Prods., Ltd., 2007 WL 900310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement counterclaims, based in part on adverse inference stemming from plaintiff’s failure to preserve and produce relevant evidence; defendant showed that substantial portion of deleted files recovered by its forensic expert were favorable to its position on various claims

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged defendant improperly disparaged plaintiff’s product, and defendant asserted counterlaims for copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data on hard drives

Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant showed that there were more than 200 million sales transactions contained in database and that it would be necessary to create a special software program to capture the information requested by plaintiffs and translate the information into a meaningful and readable format, court sustained defendant?s objections of burdensomeness and overbreadth and denied motion to compel; court would allow plaintiff to serve new, more narrowly tailored requests for production but would first require parties to confer in good faith to discuss the form in which ESI should be produced and how to ameliorate the costs attendant to production of such information

Nature of Case: Third party breach of contract and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Oklahoma, ex rel. Edmondson, 2007 WL 1498973 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had invited motion to address e-discovery issues in order to assure that e-discovery issues were moving foward, court granted motion and directed parties to the Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI for the District of Kansas to serve as guidance pendng enactment by the court of its own local rules and/or guidelines; court further noted that, although no formal preservation order had been entered, the duty to preserve evidence including ESI arises as soon as a party is aware the documentation may be relevant; court further warned parties to be “very cautious” in relying upon the safe harbor provision of new FRCP 37(e)

Nature of Case: Nuisance and CERCLA claims against owners of poultry growing operations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rafael Town Center Investors, LLC v. Weitz Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2261376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ruled plaintiff was entitled to monetary sanctions arising from defendant’s document production, stating: “It is undisputed that the first two productions were essentially unusable, and that as a result, plaintiff’s law firm wasted a considerable amount of time attempting to organize the electronic documents. It was the responsibility of defense counsel to ensure that the document production complied with Rule 34(b)(i), and to oversee the work of defendant’s document management company.”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greystone Servicing Corp., 2007 WL 4179864 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Overruling defendant’s relevancy objections to various interrogatories, court ordered defendant to serve full and complete answers to various interrogatories, including one that asked: “Identify any documents, data or other information that relate to or reference the subject matter of this litigation, that have been deleted, physically destroyed, discarded, damaged, or overwritten, whether pursuant to a document retention policy or otherwise.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Potentially deleted data

Koninklike Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 3101248 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where among other things defendants failed to produce documents in violation of court orders, made false statements regarding alleged damage to computer servers and destroyed computer servers in violation of court orders (thereby preventing an independent inspection regarding allegations that servers were damaged), court found that defendants? willful and bad faith discovery misconduct prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to obtain a fair trial on the merits and that lesser sanctions would not adequately rectify the prejudice and delay; court thus struck defendants? answers and entered default judgments against them

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers

Catagory:Case Summaries