Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)
2
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)
3
In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D. Mass. 2003)
4
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
5
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633 (D. Kan. 2004)
6
3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 606 n.5 (7th Cir. 2001)
7
United States v. Stewart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
8
Wright v. AmSouth Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2003)
9
Dean v. Priceline.com, Inc., 2002 WL 34155897 (D. Conn. Sept. 10, 2002)
10
Schnall v. Annuity and Life RE (Holdings), Ltd., 2004 WL 51117 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2004)

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)

Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”

Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files

In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D. Mass. 2003)

Key Insight: Granting summary judgment for defendants, court noted that pursuant to an earlier order, plaintiffs’ expert was given unrestricted access to the hard drives of Pharmatrak’s computer servers over one-month period, and stated that plaintiffs characterization of its expert’s search of Pharmatrak’s computer servers as a “partial” inspection was unsupported by the record and failed to raise an issue of fact

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that defendants secretly intercepted and accessed plaintiffs’ personal information and browsing habits through unlawful use of cookies and other devices

Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer servers

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

Key Insight: Based on in camera review, court granted defendant’s motion to compel based on the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered production of other documents on same subject matter and further ruled that discovery would be allowed regarding documents produced and on the issue of sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes

Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633 (D. Kan. 2004)

Key Insight: Defendant ordered to provide a complete and full response to interrogatory seeking information about Hospital Authority’s computer and email systems; defendant’s “very brief and general response” was insufficient

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

Electronic Data Involved: Information re computer and email systems

3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 606 n.5 (7th Cir. 2001)

Key Insight: Negative inference instruction warranted where six gigabytes of music were downloaded onto hard drive the night before the computer was to be turned over for inspection

Nature of Case: Manufacturer sued former employees and their new competing company for misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

United States v. Stewart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied Stewart’s motion to disqualify the attorney who inadvertently read Stewart’s email from cross-examining her or participating in the preparation of her cross-examination

Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wright v. AmSouth Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2003)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of “computer diskette or tape copy of all word processing files created, modified and/or access by, or on behalf” of five employees over 2-1/2 year period as overbroad and unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Word processing files

Dean v. Priceline.com, Inc., 2002 WL 34155897 (D. Conn. Sept. 10, 2002)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce to plaintiff information in the possession of a third party storage facility, with each side paying one-half of the charges billed by the third party for retrieving the information; court further ruled that the prevailing party would be entitled to recover from the losing party its share of the costs associated with retrieval of the information

Nature of Case: FLSA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Schnall v. Annuity and Life RE (Holdings), Ltd., 2004 WL 51117 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants had actual notice of allegations against them and affirmatively stated that they were fully aware of their preservation obligations under PSLRA and sanctions for failure to comply, court declined to enter preservation order

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, data compilations (including electronically recorded or stored data), and tangible objects

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