Case Summaries – Page 339 – Electronic Discovery Law

Qantum Communications Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions of default judgment and award of reasonable attorney fees and costs based upon defendants’ pattern of discovery misconduct, which included defendant’s lying under oath regarding key issue in case and failing to produce key “smoking gun” documents; court set hearing to determine the appropriate amount of damages and fees and costs

Nature of Case: Action for specific performance of asset purchase agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where corporate designee could not fully answer questions regarding certain topics listed in Rule 30(b)(6) notice pertaining to plaintiff?s computer servers, software, data storage and retention, or plaintiff?s efforts to search for responsive email and documents, and did not know ?exactly how [the e-discovery vendor] searched? plaintiff?s servers or ?what all was on? the CD that was produced to defendants, court found that witness was inadequately prepared and ordered plaintiff to produce a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) witness on those topics

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email; hardware and software; systems information

Ameriwood Indus., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 685623 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: On joint motion for clarification of court’s December 27, 2006 order, court approved parties’ agreed search term protocol but denied plaintiff’s request for list of ?hits? generated by searches; court further approved joint request for expert to provide information concerning defendants’ usage of their computer equipment, specifically: (1) use of erasure software or ?defragmentation? software; (2) use of detachable, portable storage media to access or download files; (3) evidence of mass deletions of files; and (4) evidence of large gaps in the contents of the files

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, deleted email and other files

PML N. Am., LLC v. ACG Enters. of NC, Inc., 2007 WL 2156276 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant was insolvent and unable to fund litigation expenses or pay monetary sanctions imposed for electronic discovery abuses (which included among other things the unexplained disappearance of a hard drive from CEO’s laptop), and in light of CEO’s active participation in the fraud, breach of contract and e-discovery abuses, court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add defendant’s CEO as an individual defendant

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Children’s Legal Servs. P.L.L.C v. Kresch, 2007 WL 4098203 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel answers to multi-part interrogatory seeking each email address, mobile phone number, internet username, and instant messaging username used by any employee, associate, partner, paralegal, shareholder or other person who worked with defendant and was involved in the provision, referral or advertisement of legal services connected to the disputed service mark or any permutation thereof, finding it unduly broad, burdensome and not limited to the discovery of relevant matters

Nature of Case: Service mark infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses and user names

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s failure to comply with discovery order requiring production of ?all electronically stored information regarding its finances,” court struck plaintiff’s claim for loss of profits and ordered plaintiff to pay reasonable expenses, costs, and attorneys? fees incurred by defendant in bringing motion

Nature of Case: Trade dress infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI regarding plaintiff’s finances

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery

Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

Catagory:Case Summaries