Case Summaries – Page 336 – Electronic Discovery Law

ATM Exchange, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 2007 WL 1674230 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide verified discovery response indicating that it had produced all relevant and responsive documents and/or information collected from imaged hardrive of key player’s computer, and to provide verified discovery response stating whether or not it had an email document retention policy in place during relevant time period

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that defendants had taken steps to prevent spoliation of evidence and the only support for preservation order was that defense counsel had been accused of destroying evidence in a separate case, court found that plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of past evidence destruction by the parties to this case and concluded that preservation order was not necessary

Nature of Case: RICO civil action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Adams, 2007 WL 789042 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiff?s objection to Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking testimony of person most knowledgeable about plaintiff?s computers/mainframe, which also requested that the deponent bring the mainframe or the ability to access the mainframe with him/her at the time of the deposition; court found that the information was relevant and discoverable, subject to the noticing party?s concession to take the deposition at the place of the mainframe

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Mainframe computer

Silipos, Inc. v. Bickel, 2007 WL 1180571 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed plaintiff to identify ?the lowest-paid employee of the data forensics company who is (a) knowledgeable about the process by which the data was extracted from defendant?s computer, and (b) able to give a deposition? by court?s deadline; court further ruled that defendant would be permitted to depose that employee for up to four hours, provided that defendant must pay for employee’s time at same hourly rate that had been billed to plaintiff; court encouraged counsel to take the deposition by telephone

Nature of Case: Misappropriation, breach of loyalty

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted documents recovered from defendant’s computer

Jacobs v. Scribner, 2007 WL 1994235 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Noting that a motion to preserve evidence requires court to consider: 1) level of concern for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of a preservation order; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to party seeking preservation absent such an order; and 3) capability of individual or entity to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering the evidence preservation, court denied (without prejudice) motion for entry of preservation order as premature since defendants had not yet appeared

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Videotaped interviews relevant to plaintiff’s claims

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not warranted for defendant’s failure to preserve copies of screenshots that may have been automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers, since plaintiff’s counsel’s preservation letter said nothing about preserving temporary cache files, defendant had no reason to believe such files were relevant, files were deleted automatically and not through any affirmative action by defendant, defendant produced forensic images of its hard drives, and plaintiff established little if any prejudice from loss of cache files

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of archived website screenshots automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

Koninklike Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 3101248 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where among other things defendants failed to produce documents in violation of court orders, made false statements regarding alleged damage to computer servers and destroyed computer servers in violation of court orders (thereby preventing an independent inspection regarding allegations that servers were damaged), court found that defendants? willful and bad faith discovery misconduct prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to obtain a fair trial on the merits and that lesser sanctions would not adequately rectify the prejudice and delay; court thus struck defendants? answers and entered default judgments against them

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers

Catagory:Case Summaries