Catagory:Case Summaries

1
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)
2
In re Graham, 363 B.R. 32 (Bkrtcy. D.N.H. 2007)
3
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2007 WL 908059 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007)
4
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)
5
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)
6
Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)
7
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)
8
Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)
9
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2007 WL 1791553 (D.N.J. June 19, 2007)
10
Peak Interests, LLC v. Tara Hills Villas, Inc., 2007 WL 2993817 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2007)

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

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2007 WL 908059 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: State appellate court found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain hard drives of defendant for the purpose of allowing an expert to determine whether they contained relevant email, since discovery requests at issue made no mention of hard drives

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for clarification and ruled that defendants would be permitted to conduct limited ex parte interviews with plaintiff’s former employee relating solely to particular database at issue, including the underlying functioning of the Advantx database and how Heartland, in particular, used that database and any custom-designed reports which Heartland may have developed; defendants were also free to ask former employee to operate the version of Heartland’s Advantx program and the Advantx database that Heartland produced in this case and were free to ask him to run searches using the program and to prepare any customized reports defendants may request from the database

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Interviews with former employee re database used by plaintiff

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

Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2007 WL 1791553 (D.N.J. June 19, 2007)

Key Insight: Further to its December 6, 2006 Opinion and Order (at 239 F.R.D. 81) sanctioning defendants and awarding plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with ?Rule 37/Integrity hearing? and related discovery motions, court approved $6,723,883 as amount of sanction

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Peak Interests, LLC v. Tara Hills Villas, Inc., 2007 WL 2993817 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff objected to producing laptop because it contained irrelevant confidential or proprietary information and promised to ?provide all requested data, in the electronic format in which it was created,? but production was not forthcoming, and, despite promise to do so plaintiff did not submit affidavit from computer consultant affirming that efforts to retrieve responsive information from laptop had been unsuccessful, court ordered plaintiff to deliver laptop to defense counsel for physical inspection and copying by a neutral third party; court restricted access to any non-responsive information retrieved to counsel of record, their experts, and necessary support staff

Nature of Case: Lease dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

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