Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
2
Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)
3
Hardeman v. Amtrak/Caltrain R.R., 2006 WL 997378 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2006)
4
Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)
5
N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)
6
Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. La. 2006)
7
In re Atlantic Int’l Mortgage Co., 2006 WL 2848575 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006)
8
Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)
9
Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)
10
Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Court awarded plaintiff $47,970 in sanctions representing attorney’s fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing motion to compel discovery of Wyeth’s adverse event database and production of prior versions of certain reports and source documents; court had earlier granted plaintiff and her expert supervised access to defendant’s database

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database and source documents for certain reports

Hardeman v. Amtrak/Caltrain R.R., 2006 WL 997378 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories, finding that defendant?s vague contention that interrogatories were burdensome and oppressive was unconvincing given its computerized database: “Without further evidence to the contrary, the Court believes that the alleged difficulty of distilling the requested information from the computerized database is overblown.”

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information contained in database

Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)

Key Insight: Ruling on defendants’ request for reconsideration and after viewing spreadsheets in camera, magistrate ordered defendants to file sworn affirmation and memorandum of law identifying with specificity the allegedly privileged information they contended was in spreadsheets; court further ordered that the contested records be redacted and produced to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets containing payroll and timekeeping data

N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon spoliation allegedly committed by former president when he erased from his computer copies of documents containing information he believed to be proprietary to plaintiff, since defendant ?discarded the documents to avoid impropriety, not to engage in it? and because the evidence that was the subject of the spoliation claim was in the record and plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary electronic documents, including business plans and customer lists

Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. La. 2006)

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions but not adverse inference instruction where defendant negligently failed to implement adequate litigation hold and preserve electronic evidence, but evidence was insufficient to show defendant acted in bad faith or with culpable state of mind or that plaintiff had suffered any prejudice

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and backup tapes

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortgage Co., 2006 WL 2848575 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006)

Key Insight: Court rejected trustee’s request for entry of default judgment based upon based on law firm’s failure to retain and timely produce relevant documents and electronically-stored information, but found that monetary sanctions were appropriate; trustee awarded his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing all discovery in the adversary proceeding

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: This order constitutes the parties? stipulated Electronic Discovery Plan and Order to Preserve Evidence, which includes definitions of various terms and sets out a number of discovery ?protocols?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

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