Case Summaries – Page 363 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of opponent’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses based upon spoliation of evidence described as “intentionally modifying and deleting files from the laptops central to this case,” finding that evidence was “far from clear-cut” that defendants destroyed evidence sufficient to warrant a death-penalty sanction

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Files on laptops

Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Does 1-35, 2006 WL 1028956 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice Doe defendant’s motion to quash subpoena issued to defendant’s ISP which argued that court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, since consideration of personal jurisdiction was premature and plaintiffs had made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendant

Nature of Case: Record companies brought infringement action arising out of internet file sharing of digital sound recordings

Electronic Data Involved: IP logs maintained by Internet Service Provider

Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce “an exact computer disc copy of the actual Quickbooks program used by Defendants to compile their data”

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Quickbooks program

z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 2401099, *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: On defendants’ motion for a new trial, court concluded that jury was properly instructed that it could make an adverse inference against Microsoft with regard to relevant email that was not produced until the day before trial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where forensic inspection of plaintiff?s laptop and disks showed evidence of tampering, including: deleted files, system date and time manipulations, access histories showing that various relevant documents were accessed after court?s order and before plaintiff?s second deposition, and other fragments of relevant documents and emails that had not been produced, and plaintiff’s explanations “verge[d] on the absurd,” court found that plaintiff had engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct, dismissed complaint with prejudice, and invited defendant to submit an application for costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; drafts of plaintiff’s resume

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

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

Catagory:Case Summaries