Case Summaries – Page 364 – Electronic Discovery Law

Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had originally asserted work product protection regarding videotape recording of insured’s funeral, but failed to adequately explain the circumstances which led to his statements that the video existed or the circumstances surrounding his claimed discovery that no such video existed, court ordered plaintiff to produce video or explain in detail any reasons for non-production

Nature of Case: Beneficiary sued insurer to recover death benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape recording of funeral

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Plaintiff’s Efforts to Preserve and Produce Email and Electronic Records Were Untimely and Inadequate; Court Invites Motion for Sanctions

Nov 27 2006

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)

This litigation arose from the casualty of the Prestige off the coast of Spain in November 2002, which caused a large oil spill. In this opinion, the court granted defendant ABS’s motion to compel the production of email and other electronic records prepared by various governmental agencies that were involved in the response to and investigation of the spill. In addition, the court invited ABS to seek sanctions for Spain’s apparent failure to preserve relevant evidence.
Read More

Court Orders Production of Handwritten Worksheets Underlying Database, in Light of Demonstrated Data Entry Errors

Nov 27 2006

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

This case is one of many arising from the arrests of approximately 1,800 people during the Republican National Convention (“RNC”) in New York City in the summer of 2004. This decision addressed plaintiffs’ motion to compel the city to produce certain documents and electronically stored information. Among other rulings, the court granted plaintiffs’ request for production of certain arrest worksheets used in connection with the city’s Online Booking System ("OLBS"). The OLBS worksheets contained handwritten information regarding the arresting or assigned officer’s recollection of the events that preceded the arrest. The information on the worksheet is subsequently entered into the OLBS, often by someone other than the officer who filled out the worksheet. The city argued that the plaintiffs’ request for OLBS worksheets for non-party arrestees was duplicative, since the information sought could be found in database printouts the city had already agreed to produce. However, plaintiffs contended that “significant errors, edits and omissions” occur at the data entry stage, and that the information contained in the handwritten worksheets sought may therefore differ from that in the database printouts, which contained only the information actually entered into the OLBS. The court found that an example cited by plaintiffs supported their contention, and ordered production of the worksheets subject to an "attorneys’-eyes-only" designation.

Ruling on a separate request, the court sustained the city’s objection to plaintiffs’ request for "[a]ll electronic data concerning RNC arrests" maintained by various entities, finding it to be impermissibly vague.

Catagory:Case Summaries