Case Summaries – Page 353 – Electronic Discovery Law

Orbit Elecs., Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., 2006 WL 1281038 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s motion to compel production of complete copy of plaintiff’s QuickBooks system, where request was made on first day of jury trial and could have come before, plaintiff had already provided a considerable amount of documents to defendant in discovery, and defendant was unable to show that court acted arbitrarily in denying its motion or that information sought would have done anything to bolster its case

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of loyalty and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks data

On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to overbroad request for all emails, finding that defendants’ production of all existing emails sent to or from plaintiff, or pertaining to plaintiff’s performance during relevant time period was a reasonable attempt to provide responsive information; court further rejected plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause regarding possible spoliation, concluding that it was not reasonable for defendants “to have foreseen that all e-mails would be relevant to plaintiff’s situation”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant’s excuses for extended delay in producing itemization of withdrawals in a format usable by plaintiff, and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reasonable cost of attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for contempt of court’s prior order

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Billing records, backup tapes, DVDs

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 3290402 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant had not previously understood that its obligation to search for responsive documents extended to email accounts, but counsel had taken steps to rectify the situation, court denied plaintiff?s demand that defendant be compelled to produce an affidavit describing its document search and collection processes, and instead ordered defendant to provide a verified statement signed by a responsible corporate official that defendant made a good faith search for responsive material and that all responsive, non-privileged documents were produced

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 3524502 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where evidence showed that defendant had not fully complied with preliminary injunction and had continued to retain and use disputed software, court ordered defendant to produce all of its computers for inspection by plaintiff’s computer expert to ensure that all plaintiff’s software and trade secrets were removed; court further ordered defendant to bear costs of expert’s work and to pay plaintiff its reasonable fees and expenses in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Software programs, disks, hard drives

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted whole directories without looking at their contents and designed drive wiping program to write over data indiscriminately after he had notice of the pendency of the litigation, court concluded that ?the extreme nature? of plaintiff?s bad faith behavior, combined with harm done to defendants, merited dismissal of plaintiff?s claims with prejudice; court further ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $65,000 to reimburse them for expenses incurred in investigating and litigating spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Retaliation under False Claims Act and other federal statutes, and Washington state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced digitized documents from defendant’s inspection of nine boxes of hard copy documents (some 10,000 pages) per the parties’ agreement, court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide an index of such digitized documents, finding that Rule 34 does not require a party to create an index

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence and breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Index of digital documents

Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding that requested documents were relevant and properly discoverable, court granted motion to compel production of various financial records, including an electronic copy of party’s Quickbooks files, and ordered that the records be produced under protective order in a form agreed to by the parties

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of Quickbooks files

Pure-Flo MPC, LLC v. Bio Fab Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 1389115 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for accelerated discovery and immediate inspection and copying of defendants’ computers by computer forensic specialist designated by plaintiff, since plaintiff had not yet filed its preliminary injunction motion: ?The Court will not accelerate and expand discovery beyond the parameters annunciated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to help the parties prepare for an evidentiary hearing that may never take place.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, confidential business information

Catagory:Case Summaries