Catagory:Case Summaries

1
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)
2
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
3
Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)
4
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 WL 3050860 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006)
5
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)
6
Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)
7
Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)
8
Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)
9
Plaintiff’s Efforts to Preserve and Produce Email and Electronic Records Were Untimely and Inadequate; Court Invites Motion for Sanctions
10
Court Orders Production of Handwritten Worksheets Underlying Database, in Light of Demonstrated Data Entry Errors

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)

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

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Court abused its descretion when it refused to enter protective order addressing Allstate’s production of computer program and manuals, since plaintiff made no showing that discovery under a protective order would be detrimental to his case, and it was shown that discovery without a protective order could be detrimental to Allstate

Nature of Case: Bad faith insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Colossus computer program used by Allstate to evaluate claims

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)

Key Insight: Further to its previous orders imposing $111,348 in sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, and where Krumwiede presented no evidence of financial inability to pay sanctions amount, court ordered Krumwiede to pay sanctions within 30 days or the remainder of his pleadings would be stricken

Nature of Case: Former employee who went to work for competitor sued for back pay and reformation of employment agreement; former employer asserted counterclaims for breach of non-compete and confidentiality clauses and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 WL 3050860 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that defendants did not produce all requested electronic documents and that defense counsel had not conducted a proper inquiry to determine whether or not all electronic documents were produced, court ordered defendants to verify that all requested electronic documents were produced and to produce any electronic documents not yet provided

Nature of Case: Fraud and related claims stemming from BART construction subcontracts

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge barred Dell from using certain documents at trial since plaintiff had no notice that the documents would be relied upon by Dell to support its defenses until the documents were specifically produced after the discovery deadline; court noted that, although the documents were among some 542,917 documents produced by Dell in electronic form and in a searchable format using a CaseData System, there was no evidence that Dell ever identified any of the documents provided on the CaseData System as responsive to any particular discovery request, and documents were neither produced as “kept in the ordinary course of business” nor as “ordinarily maintained”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel American Express to search for email sent from and to certain executives who were no longer employed by American Express, since the moving parties had not agreed to search for email sent from or to their own former executives and American Express had already produced some 27,501 emails sent to or from certain former executives through the production of email from other custodians

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former executives

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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

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.

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