Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)
2
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006 WL 1343597 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)
3
India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)
4
Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)
5
Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)
6
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)
7
Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)
8
Dehart v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., 2006 WL 83406 (W.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2006)
9
Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)
10
Orbit Elecs., Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., 2006 WL 1281038 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2006)

Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defense counsel withdrew defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to inspect, at its expense, defendants’ computers, court denied as moot plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendants’ Computers, Other Electric Equipment and Electronic Storage Devices and ordered the parties to include a stipulated plan for electronic discovery in their Case Management Report

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, deceptive and unfair business practice, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ computers

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006 WL 1343597 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)

Key Insight: Finding good cause and no First Amendment prohibition, court granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery and serve Rule 45 subpoena upon ISP to obtain names and contact information for Doe Defendants; ISP to serve copy of subpoena and court?s order upon relevant subscribers and subscribers would have 15 days to file any objections; if no objections filed, ISP would have 10 days to produce each subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control (?MAC?) addresses

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a fuller production of email communications from the servers of a wide variety of DB personnel, and DB represented that it searched all pertinent email files and had no other responsive emails, court ruled: “Under these circumstances, the only avenue open to [plaintiff] on this matter is to pursue the question of the scope of e-mail use and retention through depositions.”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

Key Insight: Given the tremendous volume of information accumulated in claims database and defendant’s claimed inability to segregate claims based on various attributes, court ordered parties to develop sampling protocol to obtain examples of claims files that involved issue similar to that in the litigation

Nature of Case: Reinsurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Claims database

Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied request for sanctions or adverse inference instruction based on absence of video footage of plaintiff after arrest since there was no evidence of bad faith and video security system had experienced a number of unexplained problems

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

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

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

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