Case Summaries – Page 335 – Electronic Discovery Law

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of: (1) electronic data used to answer interrogatories, (2) information systems organizational charts, (3) policies and records regarding electronic data, electronic backup, electronic data retention and destruction, finding that the requests could lead to relevant evidence regarding what efforts defendant made to preserve ESI, since plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to produce ESI with its initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI used to answer interrogatories; backup and retention policies

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata

Willbros Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 2007 WL 2891500 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s attorneys? repeated inaccurate representations that all responsive documents had been produced demonstrated gross negligence but not intentional bad faith, and belated production necessitated re-opening discovery and continuing trial date, court concluded that requested sanction of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and default judgment against plaintiff on cross-claims was too harsh and that lesser (monetary) sanctions were appropriate

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files relating to $100 million construction project, computer index, audiotapes of meetings

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where discovery missteps which resulted in delayed production of notebooks were merely negligent and not reckless or intentional, court imposed penalty of cost-shifting and reimbursement in the amount of $50,000 and declined to impose any of the ?inquisitorial sanctions? demanded by plaintiff; court further ruled that ?no [defense] attorneys will be dragged behind a chariot outside the city’s walls.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Scientists’ notebooks that were converted into electronic format

Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had destroyed her computer and modem equipment with knowledge of her duty to preserve relevant evidence and in an attempt to protect herself from plaintiffs’ claims, court declined to enter default judgment and would instead: (1) preclude her from offering certain evidence and arguments at trial, and (2) give an adverse inference instruction to the jury

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Individual defendant’s computer and cable modem

Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In this seminal case, District Court Judge Paul Grimm held that the failure of both parties to adhere to the rules of evidence precluded entry of summary judgment and discussed at length and in great detail the admissibility of electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Action to enforce a private arbitrator?s award

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted

Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Catagory:Case Summaries