Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)
2
Smoliak v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 2006 WL 1029643 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2006)
3
Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)
4
Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 WL 2398766 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2006)
5
Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
6
MacNamara v. City of New York, 2006 WL 3298911 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)
7
Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)
8
United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)
9
Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
10
Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

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

Smoliak v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 2006 WL 1029643 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate issued Certification of Facts for a Finding of Contempt relating to conduct of non-party Brett Cormier, a relative and employer of plaintiff who had consistently failed to comply with discovery orders or produce salary and employment records; court had previously stated: “The Court is still reluctant to order an inspection of Cormier’s computer, at his expense, to obtain this information since it seems an extreme, expensive, and unnecessarily invasive process to obtain what should be relatively easy information about Plaintiff’s income. However, Cormier must be more cooperative in producing the limited information requested of him or the Court may be left with no other option. . . . Work history and salary information is simple, straightforward information that every reputable business maintains in a variety of easily retrievable formats, and the Court simply does not accept the representations heretofore made for why Brett Cormier cannot locate this information. This issue is getting tiresome and has occupied far too much of this Court’s time and energy.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Salary and employment information

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 WL 2398766 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to submit amended proposal for protective order governing defendants’ production of source code, to include following items: (1) Defendants to produce a single electronic copy, to be kept either by plaintiff’s attorneys or by plaintiff’s expert; (2) electronic copy to be maintained pursuant to security scheme employed by plaintiff’s expert, as described at oral argument; and (3) Only three hard copies may be made, total

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Court applied Zubulake factors and granted in part defendant?s motion to shift costs, holding that defendant was entitled to recover 30 percent of the costs of restoring and searching backup tapes for responsive emails of one former employee, stating: “[I]f a party creates its own burden or expense by converting into an inaccessible format data that it should have reasonably foreseen would be discoverable material at a time when it should have anticipated litigation, then it should not be entitled to shift the costs of restoring and searching the data.”

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

MacNamara v. City of New York, 2006 WL 3298911 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered production of handwritten worksheets used to compile database in light of demonstrated data entry errors that made accuracy of database printouts suspect; court also sustained objection to request for “all electronic data concerning RNC arrests” as impermissibly vague

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from arrests during 2004 Republican National Convention

Electronic Data Involved: Worksheets underlying database

Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court’s preliminary injunction included the following provision: “Pending resolution of this litigation, the Defendants shall not destroy, delete, or alter electronically stored file information.”

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed damage to its goodwill and business reputation based upon Internet postings regarding a particular vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Emails properly authenticated by: name of alleged sender in email address (brian.worthing@us.army.mil), by testimony that recipient recognized return address and had previously received emails from the same, by testimony that the emails were consistent with the way appellant talked and by testimony that the emails were consistent with conversations and experiences of the alleged sender, e.g. the first email referred to defendant?s loss of his wallet in Kuwait, an event that was corroborated by a testifying witness

Nature of Case: Court martial

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Key Insight: Defendants’ failure to comply with six separate court orders to produce personal documents and electronic documents in the possession of two law firms that had formerly represented defendants, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults, warranted striking of their answer

Electronic Data Involved: CDs containing electronic documents

Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate ordered parties to share cost of $15,182 hard copy production (responding party to pay 60 percent and requesting party to pay 40 percent) where parties failed to seek assistance from the court prior to the copying, and where some of the reproduction was unnecessary since much of the information was available through other means, including on CD

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing purchase orders

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