Case Summaries – Page 335 – Electronic Discovery Law

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 1686327 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Declining to grant sanction of dismissal since there was insufficient evidence of intentional or bad faith conduct, or adverse inference instruction since it was unclear how relevant the missing email was, court awarded monetary sanctions since Spain?s failure to timely implement adequate litigation hold and failure to conduct timely and diligent search for electronic discovery was negligent and resulted in loss of email; court further directed Spain to complete its forensic search for email records and produce such records on rolling basis

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports

Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1076702 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive

Woodburn Const. Co. v. Encon Pacific, LLC, 2007 WL 1287845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions where parties had agreed on detailed ESI discovery protocol and defendant had opportunity to discover ESI from plaintiff pursuant thereto but never availed itself of that opportunity notwithstanding plaintiff’s continued cooperation; court further awarded sanctions to plaintiff for having to oppose the motion

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. American Viatical Servs., LLC, 2007 WL 3492762 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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

Catagory:Case Summaries