Case Summaries – Page 363 – Electronic Discovery Law

Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation inference based upon former employee’s deletion of files on home computer, since plaintiff could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from alleged spoliation or show that former employee was “at fault” for deleting the files, i.e., that he intended to impair plaintiff’s ability to uncover evidence; employee claimed to have deleted the files to ensure that he no longer had access to plaintiff’s information after he resigned his employment

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Files on former employee’s home computer

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

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

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, concluding that, although defendants may have been negligent in their deletion of lines of source code, the record did not support a finding of bad faith or prejudice

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where one defendant failed to comply with court’s orders regarding forensic inspection and copying of hard drives, and there was evidence of data spoliation and physical tampering with computer hardware, court concluded that default judgment was appropriate sanction and also ordered the defendant to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs that its misbehavior caused plaintiff to incur

Nature of Case: Insurance fraud, insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Various hard drives and backup drives

Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented convincing evidence at preliminary injunction hearing of defendant’s intentional spoliation of evidence, including his installation of file ?shredder? program on laptop computer the day before litigation was filed and under threat of its commencement, court allowed inference that that considerably more evidence of misconduct would have been found without the spoliation and granted preliminary injunction barring defendant from, among other things, destroying or deleting relevant ESI

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

MicroBrightField, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825 (D. Vt. Mar. 30, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered: “The parties should also resolve MBF’s request for production of Boehringer’s computers and data storage devices. In the event the parties do not cooperate and resolve the discovery issues, the Court will hold a hearing and require attorneys to be present.”

Nature of Case: Former employer alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, unauthorized access of its computer system, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s computer and data storage devices

B & G Crane Serv., L.L.C. v. Duvic, 2006 WL 1194775 (La. Ct. App. May 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Even lacking direct evidence that defendants continued to possess plaintiff?s computer disks and information (which had been seized by the Attorney General in related criminal investigation), trial court erred in denying preliminary injunction given evidence of defendants? knowing and willing participation in criminal, unethical and unscrupulous acts against plaintiff and possibility that information could have been downloaded to other computers, or printed, or handwritten and kept anywhere; trial court’s credibility determination in favor of defendants was abuse of discretion under the circumstances

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: CDs and computer disks

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

Catagory:Case Summaries