Catagory:Case Summaries

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States District Court for the District of Montana, 2005 WL 730193 (9th Cir. 2005)

Brian and Ryann Kapsner (“the Kapsners”) brought suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (“Burlington”) on July 12, 2002, alleging that Burlington had dumped diesel oil and toxic solvents on their land resulting in contamination. The discovery process was fraught with controversy. The Kapsners filed their first request for production on November 6, 2002. Burlington responded on December 9, 2002, but without a privilege log despite both parties intending and expecting its production. Read More

Beck v. Atlantic Coast PLC, 868 A.2d 840 (Del. Ch. Feb. 11, 2005)

This case was brought as a class action seeking relief and damages in connection with the marketing and sale of “Window Power Tools.” This allegedly sham product, developed by Digital Millennium, Inc. (“DMI”) and Salaman Zafar of Pakistan and sold via Atlantic Coast PLC, was advertised as being capable of optimizing Windows. Heinrich Beck, the proposed class representative and alleged victim of the scheme, was in fact a savvy Internet user who was not victimized and decided to pursue those responsible for the product. Beck’s web page revealed his true identity and motivation, but its entirety was wrongfully withheld and only revealed via an Internet search by Atlantic Coast. Read More

Etzion v. Etzion, 2005 WL 689468 (N.Y.Sup. Feb 17, 2005)

In this matrimonial matter, Plaintiff moved by order to show cause for an order allowing her (with the help of a sheriff) to “gain access” to Defendant’s premises and impound, clone, and inspect items containing electronic data. The order was also to shift costs to Defendant and direct Defendant not to make business data inaccessible. The requests were denied, although the Appellate Division granted the part directing Defendant not to disrupt business data. Defendant opposed and cross-moved for a $15 million bond and making Plaintiff responsible for potential harm to his business interests. Read More

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 679071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005)

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. (“CPH”) sued Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (“MS & Co.”) for fraud in connection with CPH’s sale of its stock in Coleman, Inc. to Sunbeam Corporation. Establishing whether MS & Co. had knowledge of Sunbeam’s fraudulent scheme was central to the case, and CPH sought access to MS & Co. documents, including email. Read More

Weiller v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3245345 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2005) (Unpublished)

Plaintiff brought a putative class action in New York state court alleging that Unumprovident Corporation had engaged in an elaborate scheme to limit its liability to policyholders by denying meritorious claims based on economic factors having nothing to do with insureds’ actual qualifications under the policies. Plaintiff named Unumprovident as a defendant, as well as two other disability insurers. Eight other similar class actions are part of a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Unum’s home venue. In addition, six pending securities class actions accuse Unum of implementing the decade long scheme and seek damages for Unum’s alleged failure to maintain sufficient reserves to account for any resulting liabilities. Other related class actions and derivative shareholder suits are also pending against the defendant based on similar claims. Preservation orders were entered in the MDL case and in Keir v. UnumProvident Corp., which required UnumProvident to preserve 25 categories of documents dating back approximately 10 years, including substantially all computer disks and drives, and email files. Read More

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC., 382 F.Supp.2d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

In her sixth opinion in this case, Judge Scheindlin ruled on the parties’ motions in limine, several of which related to e-discovery issues that were the topics of prior decisions:

1. Defendants moved to preclude the introduction of evidence regarding the court’s previous decisions in the case, including the imposition of sanctions on UBS. Granting the motion, the court agreed with defendants that the earlier decisions were irrelevant to plaintiff’s discrimination claims and would unfairly prejudice UBS. The court noted that the jurors would be told all they need to know through the evidence admitted at trial and through the court’s charge, and that there was no need to reference the court’s earlier decisions. Read More

Harrison v. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P., 2005 WL 517342 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2005)

In this case, a company (NovelAire) filed a complaint against its former employees (Harrison and Bucklin) for breach of agreement and breach of fiduciary duties, intentional interference with a contract, and violations of Lousiana’s unfair trade practices act. The same day it filed its complaint, NovelAire applied ex parte for the issuance of a pre-trial discovery order, entitled “Order for Expedited Discovery to Preserve Evidence.” The request was based, in part, on an email written by Bucklin that allegedly evidenced the employees’ intent to destroy discoverable evidence pertinent to NovelAire’s state court case. Read More

Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2005 WL 459267 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2005)

At the conclusion of discovery, defendant moved for the imposition of sanctions on plaintiff, contending that plaintiff had systematically ignored its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, violated a series of court orders directing it to produce documents within specified deadlines, and irremediably prejudiced defendant’s ability to prepare its case. Defendant sought dismissal of the complaint, or, in the alternative, an order (1) precluding plaintiff from presenting evidence on a series of specific topics, (2) authorizing defendant to place in evidence a quantity of emails produced in an untimely fashion by plaintiff and (3) requiring plaintiff to reimburse defendant for the costs of one deposition session and its current motion. Read More

E*Trade Securities LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Civil No. 02-3711 RHK/AJB and Civil No. 02-3682 RHK/AJB (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2005)

United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan filed a Report and Recommendation regarding several electronic discovery disputes arising in a case where plaintiffs claim that defendants engaged in a fraudulent securities lending scheme. Two plaintiffs moved for sanctions based on certain defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence and failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry in response to discovery requests; defendants opposed the sanctions motion and moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The judge recommended that the plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions be granted and that defendants’ motion be denied. Read More

Computek Computer & Office Supplies, Inc. v. Walton, 2005 WL 352036 (Tex.App. Feb. 15, 2005)

Plaintiff sued competing business and its owner, alleging that owner used trade secrets obtained during his employment with plaintiff to form the competing company. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff and awarded it actual and exemplary damages. In addition, the trial court entered a permanent injunction against defendant which enjoined defendant from, among other things, “[r]emoving or destroying any files, or copies of files, including but not limited to Defendants’ computer or computer files.” Read More