Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)
2
Forrest v. All Cities Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 2007 WL 3026787 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2007)
3
In re Gupta, 263 S.W. 3d 184 (2007)
4
Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)
5
Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)
6
E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)
7
Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)
8
Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)
9
Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)
10
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)

Key Insight: District Court sustained plaintiff?s objection to magistrate judge?s discovery order to the extent that factual findings omitted consideration of an exhibit submitted with plaintiff?s motion, which constituted evidence of defendant?s past possession of email which should have been produced in response to a particular discovery request (the exhibit was an email that discussed at least one prior email which was not produced); court remanded to magistrate judge issue of whether to compel further response or production in response to that particular discovery request

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted claims relating to prison’s Kosher Meal Program

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Forrest v. All Cities Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 2007 WL 3026787 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2007)

Key Insight: In case where defendant was shutting down its business effective November 1, 2007 and plaintiffs argued that shutdown raised possibility of evidence spoliation, court denied plaintiffs? request for order requiring defendant to preserve documents related to lawsuit since plaintiffs offered no evidence that defendant was actually destroying evidence or failing to retain relevant documentation and because defendant?s duty to prevent spoliation of relevant evidence was inherent in judicial process and business shutdown did not impact it

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified evidence

In re Gupta, 263 S.W. 3d 184 (2007)

Key Insight: Appellate court denied petition for writ of mandamus where trial court appropriately ordered ?death penalty sanctions? (struck all pleadings) for defendant?s discovery violations including repeated failure to produce relevant information, repeated production of fraudulent materials, including diskettes and computers, and repeated false representations to the court; plaintiff filed three motions to compel and at least two motions for sanctions resulting in more than $60,000 in fines before imposition of ?death penalty sanctions? by trial court

Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, diskettes, ESI

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff withheld and destroyed relevant documents and committed other egregious discovery abuse, but other factors weighed against dismissal, court concluded that less extreme sanctions were appropriate and precluded plaintiff from presenting certain arguments at trial and from seeking damages related to the termination of his employment

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sued publisher alleging breach of a promise to keep his name and employer confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Email

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Where court had previously denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that defendant had made the showing, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), that email sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or costs,” and because plaintiff had not shown good cause to justify the expense of the proposed discovery, court denied subsequent motion to compel defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee to provide testimony on how email production cost estimate was determined

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff contended that defendant had not thoroughly searched its electronic storage network or devices for relevant documents, court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to conduct and document a further comprehensive search since plaintiff failed to cite authority for proposition that court should enforce plaintiff?s subjective notion of how defendant should conduct discovery: ?Defendant is under a duty to produce all relevant documents. Defendant is not under a duty to comply with every discovery procedure requested by Plaintiff.?

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

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

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

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