Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mathias v. Jacobs, 197 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), vacated, 167 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
2
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978)
3
In re Propulsid Prods. Liab. Litig., 2003 WL 22174137 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2003)
4
Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, LP, 203 F.R.D. 56 (D.N.H. 2001)
5
Symantec Corp. v. McAfee Assoc., Inc., 1998 WL 740807 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 1998)
6
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004)
7
Wilson v. Sundstrand Corp., 2003 WL 21961359 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2003)
8
Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)
9
McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 221 F.R.D. 423 (D.N.J. 2004)
10
Benton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2001 WL 210685 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2001)

Mathias v. Jacobs, 197 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), vacated, 167 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation

Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978)

Key Insight: Requiring defendant to bear expense of identifying class members was abuse of discretion where cost of effort (over $16,000), which included manually sorting records, keypunching and creating software programs, would be same for plaintiff and no special circumstances existed

Nature of Case: Securities fraud class action

Electronic Data Involved: Computer tapes

In re Propulsid Prods. Liab. Litig., 2003 WL 22174137 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2003)

Key Insight: Brief reference to court’s earlier order narrowing the scope of subpoena to hard copy documents only, rather than including production of electronic documents

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic production of documents

Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, LP, 203 F.R.D. 56 (D.N.H. 2001)

Key Insight: Defense counsel’s failure to produce computer records and to retain all drafts of settlement documents reflected lack of diligence rather than intentional effort to abuse discovery process; testimony of witness barred and $500 awarded as sanctions

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer records

Symantec Corp. v. McAfee Assoc., Inc., 1998 WL 740807 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 1998)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to modify scheduling order to allow additional electronic discovery (production of all source code and image copies of all hard drives with access to a server from which a particular disk was copied) denied because plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence — it had possession of the disputed disk for over nine months before it examined the disk and appreciated its significance

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code, image copies of hard drives

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004)

Key Insight: Finding it “astounding” that defendant’s employees failed to follow court’s preservation order and defendant’s own document retention policies, court rejected plaintiff’s request for adverse inference but imposed monetary sanction of $2,750,000 and barred testimony from at least 11 witnesses who failed to comply with defendant’s own internal document retention program

Nature of Case: Tobacco litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wilson v. Sundstrand Corp., 2003 WL 21961359 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2003)

Key Insight: As sanction for discovery abuse and tardy production of “smoking gun” email, court precluded defendant from opposing the admission in evidence of various emails and records, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Airline crash litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)

Key Insight: Sanctions not warranted where plaintiffs made ?tenuous allegation? without any specific evidentiary support that defendants had implemented a new email document retention policy after litigation was commenced and that potentially relative emails may have been destroyed pursuant to the policy

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 221 F.R.D. 423 (D.N.J. 2004)

Key Insight: Magistrate recommended that non-parties’ motion for attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in appearing for depositions and responding to subpoenas be denied, since non-parties failed to object to subpoenas or condition compliance on reimbursement, and an award of $58,000, without notice to plaintiffs, would be tantamount to severe prejudice

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents

Benton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2001 WL 210685 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2001)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to continue summary judgment and for additional discovery of defendant’s computer system denied where prior Rule 56(f) continuance had been granted and no showing was made of specific evidence expected to be elicited

Nature of Case: Insureds sued insurer for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Insurer’s claims-handling computer system

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