Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Leidig v. Buzzfeed, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 542 (VM) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2017)
2
Golon, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. (W.D. PA, 2017)
3
Linior v. Polson, No. 1:17cv0013 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2017)
4
5
Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith (Southern District California, 2017)
6
William C. Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., No. C17-5243-BHS, 2017 WL 4168502 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017)
7
Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Llyods, London, No. 16-cv-02737, 2017 WL 2536419 (E.D. Pa. June 12, 2017)
8
Moody v. CSX Transp., —-F.Supp.3d—, No. 07-CV-6398P, 2017 WL 4173358 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017)
9
Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017)
10
Kirk v. Invesco, Ltd., No. H-15-833, 2017 WL 1078763 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2017)

Golon, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. (W.D. PA, 2017)

Key Insight: communications that occurred outside of the mediation but involve the mediator are not protected by the mediation privilege

Nature of Case: Insurance Bad Faith

Electronic Data Involved: documents used in mediation that Defendant claim to be protected by mediation privilege

Keywords: mediation privilege, reconsideration, under seal

View Case Opinion

Linior v. Polson, No. 1:17cv0013 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2017)

Key Insight: Lack of prejudice or evidence of intent to deprive. Denied motion for dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e). No evidence that higher quality recordings actually existed and were not preserved.

Nature of Case: Excessive force used during security screening

Electronic Data Involved: closed circuit video recordings

Keywords: preserve video recording, excessive force at the security screening.

View Case Opinion

Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith (Southern District California, 2017)

Key Insight: Lost ESI claim failed because there was no proof anything was lost and there was no clear duty to preserve.

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: archived email, facebook posts

Keywords: spoliation, lost ESI, duty to preserve

View Case Opinion

William C. Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., No. C17-5243-BHS, 2017 WL 4168502 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017)

Key Insight: Where Defendant contended there was only one way to search the at-issue database but failed to explain why and where Plaintiffs noted Defendant?s failure to offer reasons why optical character recognition could not be used on the database, the court ?agree[d],? reasoning that parties might otherwise be encouraged to ?maintain inaccessible databases to limit their discovery obligations? and noted that Defendant may need to consult a third party vendor if necessary and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the issue

Nature of Case: Asbestos exposure liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database

View Case Opinion

Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Llyods, London, No. 16-cv-02737, 2017 WL 2536419 (E.D. Pa. June 12, 2017)

Key Insight: Applying the common law, the court imposed a permissive adverse inference and monetary sanctions for Plaintiff?s spoliation of his cellular phone and its contents where Plaintiff claimed a day before he was scheduled to produce it that he had lost his phone months ago but provided no details regarding the loss or his attempts at preservation or recovery of the phone and where the court concluded that Plaintiff made a ?deliberate choice to withhold [the phone] from production? and that Defendants were prejudiced as a result

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular phone and contents

Moody v. CSX Transp., —-F.Supp.3d—, No. 07-CV-6398P, 2017 WL 4173358 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017)

Key Insight: Where event data recorder information saved on a laptop computer (1) was transferred to a central repository (?the Vault?) without validation and later found to be unreadable and (2) the original files were destroyed, without validating the files in the Vault, with the laptop after a hardware malfunction, court granted plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference but declined to strike defendants? answer. Court found defendants? failure to review and validate file uploads to the central repository for over 4 years after the accident ?unfathomable? and concluded that ?their failure to access the files uploaded to the Vault for the four-year period before 2010 conflicted with their duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.? Court found defendants? actions unreasonable and without credible explanation and therefore sufficient to support a finding that defendants acted with the intent to deprive plaintiff of evidence.

Nature of Case: Personal injury (railway accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Event Data Recorder Files

Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017)

Key Insight: 4.2 million pages of keyword “”hit”” documents produced without review, but designated “”Attorney Eyes Only.

Nature of Case: unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: 4.2 million pages of keyword “”hit”” documents

View Case Opinion

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