Case Summaries – Page 359 – Electronic Discovery Law

Elion v. Jackson, 2006 WL 2583694 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant did not produce a particular email in response to interrogatories or document requests and it only came to light during a deposition a few days before the close of all discovery, court granted plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) and ordered that defendant be precluded from offering in evidence any and all documents not timely produced during discovery, including the subject email, and from offering the testimony of any witness with respect to the email or any other documents not timely disclosed

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion to delay adjudication of summary judgment motion to allow further discovery where collection agency did not retain hard copies of collection letters but instead noted the nature and types of letters on a debtor overview report and saved copies of form letters, and where dispute existed over whether an exhibit submitted in support of defendant’s motion was an accurate reproduction of defendant’s initial communication to plaintiff or a fabrication

Nature of Case: Debtor sued collection agency under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer record of collection activity and form letters

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

Dec 01 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

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)

Dec 01 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

Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Adverse inference and monetary sanctions warranted, but not default judgment, where defendant acknowledged that its personnel routinely deleted emails without regard to whether the deleted emails were relevant to the litigation, but behavior did not constitute a pattern of deliberately deceptive litigation practices and there was evidence that the actual number of emails lost was small

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Although it concluded that default judgment against former general counsel was not warranted, court found that discovery misconduct of former general counsel and its attorneys bordered on obstruction and awarded trustee its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in pursuing all discovery in the proceeding

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy trustee sued debtor’s former general counsel for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems and electronic records

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of an exact image of the hard drive of defendant’s personal computer and instead ordered that the examination of and production from defendant’s personal computer proceed on the terms spelled out in defendant’s responses to the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: PC hard drive

Catagory:Case Summaries