Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)
2
Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 799 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
3
Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)
4
Larson v. Bank One Corp., 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005)
5
BG Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1309048 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005)
6
McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)
7
United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005)
8
Padilla v. Price Toyota, 2005 WL 6209494 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2005)
9
Williams v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144 (D. Mass. 2005)
10
TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 799 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Finding that individual had stated cognizable defamation claim against anonymous author of offending email, court denied email author?s application to vacate order requiring internet service provider to disclose email account information

Nature of Case: Defamation claim based on offending email message

Electronic Data Involved: Email author identity

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged

Larson v. Bank One Corp., 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve by failing to establish a “comprehensive document retention policy” and by failing to properly disseminate the policy to its employees, and conduct evinced ?extraordinarily poor judgment? and ?gross negligence” but not willfulness or bad faith, magistrate recommended that prejudice to plaintiff could be remedied by precluding defendant from cross-examining plaintiff’s financial expert and by instructing the jury about the sanction

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Underlying data and calculations

BG Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1309048 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Request for production of “computer hard drive” was overly broad and responding party need not produce entire hard drive; however, to the extent that hard drive contained non-privileged items that were responsive to other requests as to which responding party’s objections were not sustained, such items should be produced

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and unauthorized settlement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce (among other things) computer generated employee profiles of all its employees in North Carolina from 1995 to the present, finding that producing records of over 1,000 employees who were not similarly situated to plaintiff would be unduly burdensome and oppressive and was unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated employee profiles

United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: In connection with criminal defendant’s request for certain emails and correspondence, court held that the term “government” included all agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the government and all subdivisions thereof and it was insufficient for Justice Department merely to state that certain documents were not in its possession and it was continuing to make inquiries; Justice Department ordered to immediately and by formal request in writing, demand that GSA conduct a thorough search and produce all relevant emails, including archived emails on employees’ hard drives

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice

Electronic Data Involved: Email and archived email

Padilla v. Price Toyota, 2005 WL 6209494 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of vehicle?s ?black box? where information sought was not available elsewhere and was necessary for expert analysis of airbag system despite defendants? arguments that data was irrelevant and unreliable and that retrieving the data would be unduly expensive because of need for technician to travel cross-country; regarding unreliability, court noted that a Daubert motion was not precluded in future

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Vehicle’s “black box”

Williams v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144 (D. Mass. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s request for forensic search of former employer’s information systems where plaintiff offered no credible evidence that defendants were unwilling to produce computer-generated documents or that defendants had withheld relevant information

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where insurer, in course of attempting to comply with discovery order, realized it had no electronic mechanism to retrieve case files based on whether a class was certified, but it could sort files by amount expended, court modified discovery order because it would have inflicted a substantial burden upon the insurer and the information produced would almost certainly be irrelevant

Nature of Case: Park operator alleged insurer failed to provide adequate counsel to defend a class action discrimination suit

Electronic Data Involved: Case file data

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