Case Summaries – Page 341 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied discovery motion because counsel’s exchange of emails did not satisfy Rule 37 meet and confer requirement; notwithstanding such denial, court found that defense counsel’s email attaching additional documents and advising that there were no other responsive documents did not satisfy the letter or spirit of court’s prior discovery order or the federal rules; court ordered defendant to prepare written response in accordance with Rule 34(b) and pay sanctions of $500 to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Beardsley v. All Am. Heating, Inc., 2007 WL 869959 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to answer certain interrogatories regarding customers and projects and to produce “a complete unedited electronic copy of Defendant’s database” which contained the requested information

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Reiman v. Does 1-1000, 2007 WL 1271157 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied pro se plaintiff?s request for a subpoena in case against Doe defendants, in part because subpoena sought more than mere production of documents and materials already in existence, and appeared to mandate the creation of new electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Unspecified claims against Doe defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2007 WL 1932917 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where moving party did not proffer ?a scintilla of evidence? that allegedly missing emails ever existed in the first place but simply speculated that they may have existed, and even assuming arguendo that such emails did exist, moving party could not establish any of the three required elements of spoliation, i.e., 1) that the party with control over the evidence had a duty to preserve it when it was lost or destroyed; 2) that the evidence was lost or destroyed with a ?culpable state of mind?; and 3) that the evidence was relevant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and violation of the New York State Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 2209250 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce certain documents related to forensic examinations of former employee’s computers, including electronic documents or portions thereof retrieved from the computers, and all related “fact” work product since substantial need had been demonstrated; court further ordered plaintiff’s IT employee to answer questions regarding forensic examinations at deposition, finding inadequate plaintiff’s proposal that witness respond to unanswered questions through an errata sheet since LMC’s counsel instructed witness not to testify on broad areas of inquiry and counsel was unable to fully develop lines of questioning

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Results of forensic computer analysis

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2007 WL 4171627 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Commenting on various discovery disputes that were unripe for decision, court stated that it agreed that, to the extent plaintiff requested production of entire hard drives from the computers of persons involved in the decision-making process, that the request was ?much too broad,? and stated: ?The Court relies upon litigants to identify responsive documents, wherever they may be located, and to produce them. If, through deposition or otherwise, Mr. Moore learns that searches for documents have been less then thorough and that there may be additional documents located on hard drives or at other places within Abbott’s system, he should first request that an additional search be undertaken. If that produces no documents, he may take discovery on the details of any additional search. If he is dissatisfied with that process, he may apply to the Court for additional relief.?

Nature of Case: Age discrimination in rehiring process

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of key players

Nat’l Council on Compensation Ins., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2007 WL 4365372 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on terms of protective order to govern exchange of confidential information in discovery and each side had included an “inadvertent production” provision in their respective proposals, court adopted plaintiff’s form of inadvertent production provision, which was consistent with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B); court also adopted two-tiered provision for designating information as “confidential” and “highly confidential–outside counsel’s eyes only”

Nature of Case: RICO and fraud claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel on variety of e-discovery topics and ordered defendant to allow plaintiffs? expert reasonable access to (1) phone system and backup system for purpose of recovering inadvertently overwritten phone logs and (2) appropriate personal computers or computer network in order to search for particular documents; plaintiffs further allowed to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning defendant?s computer network, phone system, and document retention and destruction practices

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

In re Krause, 367 B.R. 740 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: As sanction for debtor?s deliberate and intentional use of a wiping software program on computers after learning that court was ordering their production, and because of severe prejudice to trustee and government, court entered partial default judgment against debtor and ordered debtor to turn over all computers, portable storage devices and any backups within 10 days of order, and to execute any waivers or authorizations necessary for trustee and government to obtain assorted financial records; court further ordered that, if debtor did not comply within 10 days, bench warrant would issue for debtor?s apprehension and debtor would be incarcerated until he purged himself of contempt and complied with orders

Nature of Case: Government brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor to except his tax debt from discharge and declare various entities his alter ego

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Catagory:Case Summaries