Case Summaries – Page 351 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate denied third party’s motion to stay discovery order requiring him to give permission to Google, Inc. to produce emails from his gmail account, where third party failed to establish any likelihood of success on appeal or that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor; court was “skeptical” of third party’s unsubstantiated arguments that the volume of email was large and that attorney review would be unduly costly, and noted that “email could likely be screened efficiently through the use of electronic search terms that the parties agreed upon”

Nature of Case: Allegations of consumer fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email in third party’s Google email account

Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Does 1-35, 2006 WL 1028956 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice Doe defendant’s motion to quash subpoena issued to defendant’s ISP which argued that court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, since consideration of personal jurisdiction was premature and plaintiffs had made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendant

Nature of Case: Record companies brought infringement action arising out of internet file sharing of digital sound recordings

Electronic Data Involved: IP logs maintained by Internet Service Provider

Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce “an exact computer disc copy of the actual Quickbooks program used by Defendants to compile their data”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Quickbooks program

A/R Roofing, L.L.C. v. Certainteed Corp., 2006 WL 2381610 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where the font used by plaintiff’s expert in his hard copy list of customer estimates and contracts was ?incredibly small? and difficult to read without magnification, thus rendering hard copy list inadequate, and because defendant’s request for production of material in electronic form was not otherwise prohibited by scheduling order, court granted defendant’s motion to compel the data in electronic format

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed loss of business resulting from letter sent by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Customer list

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court narrowed subpoena to defendant’s new employer, setting out “tiered discovery” process: plaintiff was to identify at least one project involving files allegedly removed from disputed laptop; new employer would then search for documents and/or files of the type described that were related to that project and produce them; if any of the produced documents and/or files were shown to be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then the parties would proceed to the ?second tier? of discovery and plaintiff could then request documents related to other projects; if no responsive documents could be found with respect to the first identified projects, however, plaintiff would be required to make a sufficient showing to the court as to why discovery should proceed further

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

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary business and technological data

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 2006 WL 3445610 (D. Mass. Nov. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In follow up to earlier decision dismissing complaint as sanction for plaintiff’s discovery misconduct, court awarded defendant $35,000 in attorneys’ fees and full costs of $20,472 since forensic computer experts were “particularly necessary to uncover plaintiff’s skulduggery”

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; drafts of plaintiff’s resume

Flexsys Ams. LP v. Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3526794 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In case where parties disputed whether arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff and motion on the issue was pending, court allowed limited discovery and ordered defendant to choose up to 10 individuals whose files (electronic or otherwise) would be searched for information falling within certain categories

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding requests for production too broad and not reasonably particularized, appellate court concluded that trial court had erred in, among other things, not adequately resolving the question of how burdensome compliance with production requests would have proven to nonparties, where nonparties? counsel opined that it would take 5,260 hours to review email, at cost of $1,393,900, and requesting party?s expert estimated only 10 hours for such review; appellate court granted writ and vacated trial court’s orders

Nature of Case: Nonparties sought writ of mandate overturning trial court’s orders granting motion to compel depositions and production of documents pursuant to subpoenas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of opponent’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses based upon spoliation of evidence described as “intentionally modifying and deleting files from the laptops central to this case,” finding that evidence was “far from clear-cut” that defendants destroyed evidence sufficient to warrant a death-penalty sanction

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Files on laptops

Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1120632 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that the computerized claim file was clearly relevant, irrespective of whether plaintiffs intended to use the documents or not in the litigation, and ordered plaintiffs to produce the complete claim file, including hard copies and electronic documents, to the extent such documents were not privileged or prepared for the sole purpose of “probable” or “imminent” litigation

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim file

Catagory:Case Summaries