Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)
2
Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 7122747 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2007)
3
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)
4
In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)
5
Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)
6
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
7
C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)
8
In re Tri-State Armored Servs., Inc., 366 B.R. 326 (D.N.J. 2007)
9
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)
10
Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Resolving various discovery issues, court found defendants? explanation of document search sufficient and observed that plaintiff could not identify any particular document or category of missing documents based on evidence aside from his own incredulity; court added that, if gaps evolved after defendants’ supplementation of production, plaintiff could revisit the issue

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

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

NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents

In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)

Key Insight: Debtor’s liability to his former employer for willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and for award of sanctions based on his spoliation of evidence were exempted from discharge in bankruptcy; court granted former employer’s motion to lift automatic stay so that trial court could determine the amounts for which debtor was liable and enter final judgment

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and confidential business data

Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce mirror image copies of hard drives at location of defendants’ computer forensics expert, since court saw no reason to treat such discovery differently than traditional (paper) discovery, any privacy concerns were addressed in the protocol proposed by defendants, and it was less burdensome than forcing defendants’ experts to conduct their testing at the site of plaintiff’s experts

Nature of Case: Patent litigation involving claims of forgery and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Denying motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents listed on privilege log, court nonetheless found log inadequate and ordered plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log and, further, to identify whether or not each email listed is a ?string? or ?strand? email and, if so, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry in the privilege log

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Tri-State Armored Servs., Inc., 366 B.R. 326 (D.N.J. 2007)

Key Insight: District Court affirmed Bankruptcy Court’s ruling dismissing trustee’s claim for spoliation of evidence since the trustee failed to establish the fifth element of the claim

Nature of Case: Insurer brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 trustee

Electronic Data Involved: Email

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where goal of prior discovery orders authorizing immediate forensic copying of computers of defendants’ 50 key custodians by plaintiff?s expert, escorted by United States Marshall, was to protect against defendants? destruction of responsive information in light of defendants? persistent and contumacious refusals to produce ESI, court denied motion for stay of orders pending appeal, finding that the class?s interests far outweighed any potential harm to defendants in the execution of the orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

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