Catagory:Case Summaries

1
United States v. Koch Ind., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okl. 1998)
2
Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)
3
Harvey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3142228 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2004)
4
ABC Health Servs., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 158 F.R.D. 180 (S.D. Ga. 1994)
5
Armstrong v. Amstead Ind., Inc., 2004 WL 1497779 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 2004)
6
In re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. 2002)
7
Cumis Ins. Co. v. Diebold, Inc., 2004 WL 1126173 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2004)
8
In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 214 F.R.D. 178 (D.N.J. 2003)
9
Hildreth Mfg., LLC v. Semco, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
10
Kleiner v. Burns, 48 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 644, 2000 WL 1909470 (D. Kan. Dec. 15, 2000)

United States v. Koch Ind., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okl. 1998)

Key Insight: Defendant was negligent in failing to determine which computer tapes in tape library contained information relevant to imminent and ongoing litigation and in failing to communicate clear guidelines regarding preservation of information to data processing personnel and tape librarian; no adverse inference, but plaintiff could inform jury about destruction of tapes and impact on plaintiff’s proof

Nature of Case: Action under False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer tapes

Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)

Key Insight: Defendant’s production of email five days before trial was to begin did not warrant sanctions, where emails were not produced previously because defendant had changed email systems (thus rendering all previous emails irretrievable) and where email was produced as soon as it was discovered during trial prep of witness; discovery deadline extended

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination (age discrimination)

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Harvey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3142228 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to supplement interrogatory response where deposition testimony showed that some of the information sought in the interrogatory could be obtained from a simple computer operation

Nature of Case: Insured alleged that insurer’s denial of claim violated 42 U.S.C. ? 1981

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized claim file information

ABC Health Servs., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 158 F.R.D. 180 (S.D. Ga. 1994)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to dismiss IBM’s counterclaims as sanction for deletion of computer files, since erasure was done before suit was filed and did not amount to willful or bad faith disregard of discovery order or discovery request; court indicated that a jury instruction regarding destruction of documents may be an appropriate lesser sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of contract for development of software

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files containing both project-related documents and purely personal documents

Armstrong v. Amstead Ind., Inc., 2004 WL 1497779 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions stemming from defendants’ failure to disclose various relevant documents until after the close of fact discovery and plaintiffs’ expert disclosures, though defendants provided the material to their experts; instead, plaintiffs’ experts would be allowed to supplement their reports to address the belatedly-produced material

Nature of Case: Class action alleging violations of ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets and reports

In re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. 2002)

Key Insight: Texas Supreme Court denied defendant’s request for mandamus relief, finding that trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering production of backup tapes since defendant failed to support its objections as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)

Nature of Case: Class action against web host alleging contract breach, negligence and violation of Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Cumis Ins. Co. v. Diebold, Inc., 2004 WL 1126173 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to respond to document requests by searching its electronic storage devices and electronic data compilations; plaintiff convinced court that defendant may not have satisfied its discovery obligations by showing that responsive Diebold documents and emails had been obtained from other sources, but had yet to be produced by Diebold itself

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Hildreth Mfg., LLC v. Semco, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)

Key Insight: Failure to preserve certain computer hard drives did not warrant sanctions where there was no reasonable possibility that the missing hard drives (which were obtained after protective order was issued) contained evidence of the theft of trade secret information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Kleiner v. Burns, 48 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 644, 2000 WL 1909470 (D. Kan. Dec. 15, 2000)

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel disclosure of all relevant computerized data under former Rule 26(a)(1), court observed: “As used by the advisory committee, ‘computerized data and other electronically-recorded information’ includes, but is not limited to: voice mail messages and files, back-up voice mail files, e-mail messages and files, backup e-mail files, deleted e-mails, data files, program files, backup and archival tapes, temporary files, system history files, web site information stored in textual, graphical or audio format, web site log files, cache files, cookies, and other electronically-recorded information.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement (posting of copyrighted photographs on web site)

Electronic Data Involved: All voice mails, email, web sites, web pages, and other relevant electronic data

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