Catagory:Case Summaries

1
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
2
C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)
3
In re Tri-State Armored Servs., Inc., 366 B.R. 326 (D.N.J. 2007)
4
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)
5
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)
6
Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)
7
Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)
8
Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)
9
Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)
10
PML N. Am., LLC v. ACG Enters. of NC, Inc., 2007 WL 925627 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2007)

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 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

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

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where witness testified at his deposition that he did not recall receiving plaintiff?s litigation hold memorandum and had deleted unspecified email to ?clean up,? and plaintiff subsequently conducted forensic search of deponent?s computer hard drive, recovered available deleted emails and stated it would produce responsive email not previously produced, court found that defendant failed to establish two necessary elements of spoliation, since evidence was insufficient to show there were any ?missing? emails that would constitute “evidence,” or that any of the “missing evidence” was crucial to defendant’s claims or defenses

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

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

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court concluded that plaintiff had not adequately proven damages under any theory and thus damage award was zero, court found that defendant’s “unabashed flaunting of this Court’s preservation order” in failing to preserve emails resulted in additional work by plaintiffs’ counsel and the court, and as sanction, court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for all work done by counsel related to defendant’s failure to preserve email

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for ultimate sanction of dismissal based upon defendant’s loss of videotape, since there was no proof of willful or bad faith destruction and marginal relevance of missing videotape was such that plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the case was not meaningfully compromised

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape showing unpleasant encounter between plaintiff and customer which preceded plaintiff’s termination

PML N. Am., LLC v. ACG Enters. of NC, Inc., 2007 WL 925627 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2007)

Key Insight: Further to its December 20, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, 2006 WL 3759914, court awarded plaintiff $134,373 representing reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including fees of computer forensics expert) incurred because of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Insurance fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

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