Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)
2
Deloach v. Philip Morris Co., 206 F.R.D. 568 (M.D.N.C. 2002)
3
Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)
4
Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
5
Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Lasko Prods., Inc., 2003 WL 1220254 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2003)
6
Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)
7
Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys., Ltd., 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 279, 2001 WL 1319162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2001)
8
QZO, Inc. v. Moyer, 594 S.E.2d 541(S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
9
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 2004 WL 764085 (D. Kan. Apr. 8, 2004)
10
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004), amending 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004)

Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)

Key Insight: Government’s motion for “protective order clarifying that it may produce email in response to discovery requests by producing from paper records of email messages rather than from backup tapes and may overwrite backup tapes in accordance with Departmental directives” denied as inappropriate given history of dispute; plaintiffs awarded attorneys’ fees and costs associated with motion

Nature of Case: Suit against the government alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Deloach v. Philip Morris Co., 206 F.R.D. 568 (M.D.N.C. 2002)

Key Insight: Where defendant withheld computerized data and defense expert subsequently used data in rebuttal report, court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to defendants’ rebuttal expert report, and ruled that defendants would not be allowed opportunity to reply to plaintiffs’ response to the withheld information

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized transaction data

Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Magistrate’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and awarding attorneys’ fees upheld; employer required to provide available data and also respond by stating the steps taken to obtain non-work related internet sites accessed during the dates requested, including detailed explanation of efforts to obtain information and reasons its efforts were not successful if it was unable to obtain the data to fully respond to interrogatory

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information re all non-work related internet sites accessed on certain of employer’s computers during relevant period

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Lasko Prods., Inc., 2003 WL 1220254 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Although plaintiff’s production of relevant email and other documents in electronic form after the close of discovery demonstrated lack of good faith effort to produce all requested discovery in timely manner, sanctions were not warranted

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other documents in electronic form

Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files

Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys., Ltd., 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 279, 2001 WL 1319162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2001)

Key Insight: Defendant’s discovery abuses and deletion of web site pages and other electronic information warranted entry of order enjoining spoliation and imposing monetary sanctions against defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Web site pages; log files and backup tapes of nonparty web hosting company

QZO, Inc. v. Moyer, 594 S.E.2d 541(S.C. Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion for trial court to strike defendant’s answer and enter judgment for plaintiff on issue of liability, where defendant reformatted computer’s hard drive, effectively erasing any information the computer may have contained, a day before surrendering it for court-ordered inspection

Nature of Case: Dispute between former business partners

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 2004 WL 764085 (D. Kan. Apr. 8, 2004)

Key Insight: Defendant’s response to (overbroad) document request, which directed requesting party to defendant’s web site where relevant HR policies and a particular employee handbook could be retrieved, was not insufficient response; court narrowed request and ordered production of any additional documents within 20 days; no sanctions warranted

Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic HR policies and manuals

Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004), amending 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004)

Key Insight: Defendant’s subpoena to ISP of plaintiff, which sought all copies of all email sent or received by anyone at plaintiff with no limitation as to time or scope, was “massively overbroad,” “patently unlawful,” and “transparently and egregiously” violated federal rules; besides warranting sanctions in underlying suit, subpoena was grounds for separate action by employees of plaintiff against defendant for violation of federal Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state law

Nature of Case: Violation of federal electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored by Internet Service Provider

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