Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Rafael Town Center Investors, LLC v. Weitz Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2261376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)
2
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greystone Servicing Corp., 2007 WL 4179864 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2007)
3
Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)
4
Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)
5
In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)
6
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)
7
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)
8
In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)
9
Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)
10
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)

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

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

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

Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where nonparty merely asserted, without adequate factual support, that compliance with the subpoena would cause it to incur ?significant expenses,? court denied nonparty?s request for costs for time spent by its employees configuring and executing electronic search and by attorneys reviewing results of search

Nature of Case: Breach of limited partnership agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

In re Kmart, 371 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007)

Key Insight: Kmart’s failure to implement litigation hold and “woefully insufficient” efforts to retrieve responsive information did not warrant spoliation sanctions on present record and would be denied without prejudice to creditor’s renewing it in the future should evidence support it; court awarded creditor portion of attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered Kmart, to the extent it had not already done so, to perform a systematic search of all files on certain drives and produce responsive material to counsel within 14 days of order

Nature of Case: Creditor asserted breach of contract and other claims against Chapter 11 debtor in possession

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

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

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