Catagory:Case Summaries

1
McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)
2
MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)
3
DeBruhl v. DeBruhl, 608 S.E.2d 416 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 2005 WL 351230 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2005) (Unpublished)
4
Harbuck v. Teets, 2005 WL 2510229 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005)
5
Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)
6
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)
7
Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)
8
Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., 2005 WL 3088561 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005)
9
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)
10
Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as sanction for tardy production of documents, court found that plaintiff had suffered little prejudice from delay and that defendant had worked diligently, did not willfully withhold responsive documents, and did not improperly modify or delete files froom hard drive before voluntarily producing it

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

DeBruhl v. DeBruhl, 608 S.E.2d 416 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 2005 WL 351230 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: When husband failed to produce, pursuant to subpoena, computer containing financial information at hearing, court allowed a computer technician to go to husband’s home to copy the hard drive, and suspended the hearing until a later date to allow review of the hard drive

Nature of Case: Divorce proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Harbuck v. Teets, 2005 WL 2510229 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion where, in course of discovery dispute, it ordered both parties to submit their copies of data to the district court’s Information Technology personnel to see if the material could be retrieved, and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel when court’s personnel had no problems retrieving the data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents

Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce American College of Radiology reports during certain time frame, to produce all information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, their computer systems, and, if requested by the United States, to make available for deposition persons with knowledge of the computer system maintained by hospital during certain time frame

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: All information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, defendants’ computer systems

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of additional computer files denied where plaintiff offered no basis either for excusing delay or for deeming the files in question to be so significant as to justify reopening discovery more than five months after its close

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., 2005 WL 3088561 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005)

Key Insight: Court dismissed complaint as discovery sanction finding that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery was willful, (2) plaintiff’s conduct had prejudiced the defendant by impairing its ability to prepare its defense, (3) plaintiff had received sufficient warnings that its failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal, and (4) lesser sanctions would not protect the integrity of pretrial procedures or ameliorate the prejudice already visited upon the defendant

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and computer code

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.